It's not like Bush is saying, "Ha ha, you'll never get anything past me!" He's given a necessary condition for his signature, and the Democrats are unable to meet that condition due to their tax-and-spend-aholism.
Amendment XIV, Section 1 (in part). [N]or shall any state... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. That's what Bush v. Gore was about. You can't provide more protection to the people in some counties and precincts in your state without providing that protection to all counties and precincts.
But the New York case we're talking about here is dependent largely upon these parts of the Constitution:
Article I, Section 4 (in part). The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
Article II, Section 1 (in part). The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.
Amendment X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Unfortunately, this case seems even less cut-and-dried than Bush v. Gore. I personally feel that, if it gets that far, the court(s) should examine the motivation behind both HAVA and the New York regulations, understand that both are intended to protect the voter, and reach the conclusion that the states have the right under the above parts of the Constitution to provide additional protection under the law to voters above and beyond that provided by Congress.
They could always unionize. Proper attribution is one of the major things that the movie/TV industry's unions got for their workers a long time ago.
I'm normally not a big fan of unions, because they invariably progress beyond the ideals of worker protection to the farce of earning their officers a fat paycheck. The movie/TV unions are probably the least objectionable in this regard, though, in part because most of them are led by people whose careers already earn them plenty and who understand that there's no opportunity for real creativity as a career union boss.
Because Bush vetoes or threatens to veto legislation, and the "upordownvote" Republicans keep pushing hypocrisy to new heights by shattering all records on blocking legislation through cloture votes.
None of the appropriations bills have even reached Bush's desk for him to veto, and none of the appropriations bills have been filibustered. The Defense Appropriations Bill had a cloture motion filed on it, but the motion was withdrawn and debate closed without a vote.
This really goes hand-in-hand with the Democrats' reliance on continued bad news coming out of Iraq. I'm not saying that things will necessarily get to this point, but if Iraq's turnaround extends up into their political structure instead of just at the grassroots level like it is now, the Democrats might be wishing they'd used the "nuclear option" of impeachment now. (Note that impeachment now would be bad for the already horribly polarized political environment in the country, just as it was bad for the country during Bill Clinton's woes. I categorize the sibling poster's outrage/sour grapes as a symptom of that. But what's good for the country and what's good for one political party or another are not necessarily the same thing.)
Of course, I don't really see anyone other than Hillary winning the Presidency, but I also don't see the Democrats getting 60 Senate seats, either. Every seat is going to count, because there are going to be a lot of close cloture votes in 2009 and 2010. What happens in Iraq over the next year is going to make a big difference there. Although, ironically enough, what happens to the Senate probably won't have that large an effect on Iraq, since I think Hillary's is just playing to the left until she secures the nomination and isn't naive enough (cough, Obama, cough) to pull out large numbers of troops unless the situation already has improved significantly (in which case, she'd really just be continuing troop drawdowns from Summer 2009 while taking all the credit for it).
Personally, I like Puerto Rico more, but Settlers of Satan is good, too. You're completely right about being involved at all times - this applies to Puerto Rico as well.
Of course, I also like Advanced Civilization, where you can take a pretty good nap waiting for your chance to move. And when you spend 14 hours playing one game, a nap isn't a bad idea;)
That's the one where you can determine whether your local Democrat supported or opposed the impeachment measure itself, and roughly 60% of Democrats opposed it. You can't really make the same inference about the Republican tally, because halfway through the vote, they decided upon their strategy to try to force the Democrats' hand, and most of them switched their votes from "aye" to "nay".
The subsequent votes were almost along party lines, with the very few Democrats voting against their party in the camp of Kucinich's personal crusade, and the very few Republicans voting against their party wanting to stick a fork in it and move on to something else.
I don't see how trying to remove a canker sore on the ass of the world is an embarrassment. Because impeachment proceedings would turn the United States Congress into a circus yet again, except this time it would be the Democrats' fault for letting it happen.
Congress has yet to successfully pass an appropriations bill this year, and it's already November. The continuing resolution that was passed at the end of September to prevent the government from shutting down expires at the end of next week. Nevertheless, Congress has focused on waging battles on political hotbutton topics like SCHIP instead of fulfilling their annual responsibilities. Miring the Senate down in impeachment proceedings is the last thing the Democrats need, and they know it - otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about the supposed "success" of burying the impeachment resolution in committee, because Cheney would be sitting in front of a bunch of Senators right now.
The Republicans decided that their best strategy would be to call the Democrats' bluff, by forcing the issue into debate and recorded votes. Personally, I disagree with this strategy - the vote to table the resolution was good enough affirmation to me that Cheney doesn't actually merit impeachment, the slightly-more-marginalized MoveOn.org's cries of anguish notwithstanding. But it did move Kucinich's circus into a more prominent position in the national media, and what with the media's feeding frenzy over his UFO comments, the timing was uncanny.
Didn't one of the fair use exemptions passed down by the Registrar of Copyrights involve DRM that was no longer supported? Unfortunately, no (at least, not in such broad terms).
Digital TV and the assault on the VCR/DVR is going to be the telling moment in the fight against DRM. Everybody's got a TV, and just about everyone has either set their VCR or DVR to record a show or movie for them or gotten their nine-year-old child to do it for them. When the media companies finally get their way and Joe and Jane Sixpack can no longer freely re-watch "It's a Wonderful Life" to their heart's desire every holiday season, there will be outrage. Of course, by that time, the technology will be so entrenched that it will be next to impossible to remove it.
What actually will end up happening is that companies or countries (however you want to look at it) that already aren't emitting much CO2 will sell their allowance (that they weren't going to use themselves anyway) to the companies or countries that are emitting a lot of CO2. The net result: you've picked some level of global CO2 emissions and guaranteed that actual emissions will never fall below that value. (If actual global emissions were to fall below that value, then it means somebody's carbon credits aren't being sold, so the carbon credit seller will lower their prices.)
You've also maximized the amount of time it will take for companies or countries to develop technological measures for CO2 emissions reduction. A high emitter will ponder whether to develop/purchase technology or just purchase credits. Technological advancement requires the investment of capital that may not have a return for quite some time. On the other hand, carbon credits - for the holders who will never use them themselves - are free. A carbon credit seller will therefore always be able to beat the cost of technological advancement, so carbon emitters will buy credits first and then develop technology only if/when there are no more credits to buy.
In the end, all you've really done is created a massive system for the redistribution of wealth from industrialized nations to pre-industrial nations.
A number of teams were eliminated this year without hitting anything. From what I could tell, those teams who did collide with either a stationary object or a chase car got eliminated before the 11 finalists announcement. This report indicates that the remaining vehicles that didn't make the cut were cut because they would have "caused traffic jams" due to not traveling as fast as other vehicles, which sounds like a pretty bogus reason to me at first glance.
No. If they take down material and neglect to take "reasonable steps to notify the subscriber" (i.e., the person who posted the material in the first place), they lose the legal protection against any damages that the takedown causes to the subscriber. The RIAA would not benefit from this even if the university never notified anybody of a DMCA takedown.
I wondered if maybe he was joking, but after actually looking up rule 34 in the FRCP, it turned out that it looked like it was relevant to a serious discussion, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but rule 34 applies strictly to parties to an action (meaning, the plaintiff(s) or defendant(s)). University of Oregon is neither, so they have to be subpoenaed per rule 45.
Note that those Wikipedia articles are currently in the midst of some minor edit warring. Also, "all relevant standards bodies" refers solely to the IEC.
The second units you mention are not SI units. They were adopted by the IEC, but have met with great difficulty achieving worldwide usage due to the inertia of the pre-existing terms, such as "megabyte" referring to 1024^2 bytes.
Colbert still has a shot, and maybe even for all the cookies (or at least the vice presidential cookies). Draft him as a Unity08 candidate. Better yet, he's said on Larry King that he and Mike Huckabee have practically agreed to be running mates already, so draft Huckabee for the same ticket (candidates can't be from the same political party, and having Colbert coming from the left and Huckabee coming from the right is the sort of balance that Unity08 is looking for).
Okay, yeah, it'll never actually happen, but wouldn't it be great if they at least tried?
Slashdot Mirror
It's not like Bush is saying, "Ha ha, you'll never get anything past me!" He's given a necessary condition for his signature, and the Democrats are unable to meet that condition due to their tax-and-spend-aholism.
But the New York case we're talking about here is dependent largely upon these parts of the Constitution: Article I, Section 4 (in part). The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
Article II, Section 1 (in part). The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.
Amendment X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Unfortunately, this case seems even less cut-and-dried than Bush v. Gore. I personally feel that, if it gets that far, the court(s) should examine the motivation behind both HAVA and the New York regulations, understand that both are intended to protect the voter, and reach the conclusion that the states have the right under the above parts of the Constitution to provide additional protection under the law to voters above and beyond that provided by Congress.
They could always unionize. Proper attribution is one of the major things that the movie/TV industry's unions got for their workers a long time ago.
I'm normally not a big fan of unions, because they invariably progress beyond the ideals of worker protection to the farce of earning their officers a fat paycheck. The movie/TV unions are probably the least objectionable in this regard, though, in part because most of them are led by people whose careers already earn them plenty and who understand that there's no opportunity for real creativity as a career union boss.
Because Bush vetoes or threatens to veto legislation, and the "upordownvote" Republicans keep pushing hypocrisy to new heights by shattering all records on blocking legislation through cloture votes.
None of the appropriations bills have even reached Bush's desk for him to veto, and none of the appropriations bills have been filibustered. The Defense Appropriations Bill had a cloture motion filed on it, but the motion was withdrawn and debate closed without a vote.
This really goes hand-in-hand with the Democrats' reliance on continued bad news coming out of Iraq. I'm not saying that things will necessarily get to this point, but if Iraq's turnaround extends up into their political structure instead of just at the grassroots level like it is now, the Democrats might be wishing they'd used the "nuclear option" of impeachment now. (Note that impeachment now would be bad for the already horribly polarized political environment in the country, just as it was bad for the country during Bill Clinton's woes. I categorize the sibling poster's outrage/sour grapes as a symptom of that. But what's good for the country and what's good for one political party or another are not necessarily the same thing.)
Of course, I don't really see anyone other than Hillary winning the Presidency, but I also don't see the Democrats getting 60 Senate seats, either. Every seat is going to count, because there are going to be a lot of close cloture votes in 2009 and 2010. What happens in Iraq over the next year is going to make a big difference there. Although, ironically enough, what happens to the Senate probably won't have that large an effect on Iraq, since I think Hillary's is just playing to the left until she secures the nomination and isn't naive enough (cough, Obama, cough) to pull out large numbers of troops unless the situation already has improved significantly (in which case, she'd really just be continuing troop drawdowns from Summer 2009 while taking all the credit for it).
Personally, I like Puerto Rico more, but Settlers of Satan is good, too. You're completely right about being involved at all times - this applies to Puerto Rico as well.
;)
Of course, I also like Advanced Civilization, where you can take a pretty good nap waiting for your chance to move. And when you spend 14 hours playing one game, a nap isn't a bad idea
The more interesting vote was the one to table the resolution in the first place:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1037.xml
That's the one where you can determine whether your local Democrat supported or opposed the impeachment measure itself, and roughly 60% of Democrats opposed it. You can't really make the same inference about the Republican tally, because halfway through the vote, they decided upon their strategy to try to force the Democrats' hand, and most of them switched their votes from "aye" to "nay".
The subsequent votes were almost along party lines, with the very few Democrats voting against their party in the camp of Kucinich's personal crusade, and the very few Republicans voting against their party wanting to stick a fork in it and move on to something else.
Congress has yet to successfully pass an appropriations bill this year, and it's already November. The continuing resolution that was passed at the end of September to prevent the government from shutting down expires at the end of next week. Nevertheless, Congress has focused on waging battles on political hotbutton topics like SCHIP instead of fulfilling their annual responsibilities. Miring the Senate down in impeachment proceedings is the last thing the Democrats need, and they know it - otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about the supposed "success" of burying the impeachment resolution in committee, because Cheney would be sitting in front of a bunch of Senators right now.
The Republicans decided that their best strategy would be to call the Democrats' bluff, by forcing the issue into debate and recorded votes. Personally, I disagree with this strategy - the vote to table the resolution was good enough affirmation to me that Cheney doesn't actually merit impeachment, the slightly-more-marginalized MoveOn.org's cries of anguish notwithstanding. But it did move Kucinich's circus into a more prominent position in the national media, and what with the media's feeding frenzy over his UFO comments, the timing was uncanny.
I guess I should have qualified my statement with "and not live in fear of going to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison".
Digital TV and the assault on the VCR/DVR is going to be the telling moment in the fight against DRM. Everybody's got a TV, and just about everyone has either set their VCR or DVR to record a show or movie for them or gotten their nine-year-old child to do it for them. When the media companies finally get their way and Joe and Jane Sixpack can no longer freely re-watch "It's a Wonderful Life" to their heart's desire every holiday season, there will be outrage. Of course, by that time, the technology will be so entrenched that it will be next to impossible to remove it.
Frank Gehry is a one-trick pony. We ended up with this monstrosity, something akin to an exploded Jiffy-Pop container with a building underneath.
See also this and this.
What actually will end up happening is that companies or countries (however you want to look at it) that already aren't emitting much CO2 will sell their allowance (that they weren't going to use themselves anyway) to the companies or countries that are emitting a lot of CO2. The net result: you've picked some level of global CO2 emissions and guaranteed that actual emissions will never fall below that value. (If actual global emissions were to fall below that value, then it means somebody's carbon credits aren't being sold, so the carbon credit seller will lower their prices.)
You've also maximized the amount of time it will take for companies or countries to develop technological measures for CO2 emissions reduction. A high emitter will ponder whether to develop/purchase technology or just purchase credits. Technological advancement requires the investment of capital that may not have a return for quite some time. On the other hand, carbon credits - for the holders who will never use them themselves - are free. A carbon credit seller will therefore always be able to beat the cost of technological advancement, so carbon emitters will buy credits first and then develop technology only if/when there are no more credits to buy.
In the end, all you've really done is created a massive system for the redistribution of wealth from industrialized nations to pre-industrial nations.
Out of curiosity, do you happen to know how many of the finalists were Track A and how many were Track B?
Hey, I think I remember this show from back when it was called Star Trek: Voyager.
A number of teams were eliminated this year without hitting anything. From what I could tell, those teams who did collide with either a stationary object or a chase car got eliminated before the 11 finalists announcement. This report indicates that the remaining vehicles that didn't make the cut were cut because they would have "caused traffic jams" due to not traveling as fast as other vehicles, which sounds like a pretty bogus reason to me at first glance.
BTW, to the genius mod who rated me off-topic:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule34.htm
No. If they take down material and neglect to take "reasonable steps to notify the subscriber" (i.e., the person who posted the material in the first place), they lose the legal protection against any damages that the takedown causes to the subscriber. The RIAA would not benefit from this even if the university never notified anybody of a DMCA takedown.
I wondered if maybe he was joking, but after actually looking up rule 34 in the FRCP, it turned out that it looked like it was relevant to a serious discussion, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but rule 34 applies strictly to parties to an action (meaning, the plaintiff(s) or defendant(s)). University of Oregon is neither, so they have to be subpoenaed per rule 45.
Note that those Wikipedia articles are currently in the midst of some minor edit warring. Also, "all relevant standards bodies" refers solely to the IEC.
The second units you mention are not SI units. They were adopted by the IEC, but have met with great difficulty achieving worldwide usage due to the inertia of the pre-existing terms, such as "megabyte" referring to 1024^2 bytes.
Colbert still has a shot, and maybe even for all the cookies (or at least the vice presidential cookies). Draft him as a Unity08 candidate. Better yet, he's said on Larry King that he and Mike Huckabee have practically agreed to be running mates already, so draft Huckabee for the same ticket (candidates can't be from the same political party, and having Colbert coming from the left and Huckabee coming from the right is the sort of balance that Unity08 is looking for).
Okay, yeah, it'll never actually happen, but wouldn't it be great if they at least tried?
You're fooling yourself if you think things will change in 2009, no matter who gets elected.