Embassy grounds are sovereign soil that belong to the foreign government in question. "Storming" an embassy would essentially be a military invasion of Ecuador, otherwise known as an unprovoked act of war. More than that, it would demonstrate a massive disregard for decades of international law and diplomatic procedure, and open up ALL of the US Embassies worldwide to attack.
It's an interesting theory. However, the election needs to end, and the work of government needs to begin at some point. Because of the ubiquity of cameras, Internet, microphones, etc., nobody ever gets to the part where they do the job they were sent to Congress to do, which is fairly well described in the Constitution - passing laws, passing spending bills, etc.
I'm curious as to when you think that the Republican base fell asleep, because even Reagan worked with Tip O'neill to get things done, and the country was far better off for it - they planted the seeds for the largest economic growth the world has ever seen. Even today, all the candidates for the Republican nomination shout from the rooftops about how great Reagan was.
Compromise != surrender, but there's a lot of people in the far right that think it does. As well as the far left, for that matter - they're just not as visible right now.
That has a lot to do with the rules established in the House and Senate - which go back to Thomas Jefferson. Literally. The house still uses his rulebook for how to run the shop.
Their "supposed agenda" as you put it, gets shut down in committee long before it can reach the floor. This happens with the ridiculous garbage bills from both fringe edges of the two parties - you'll never get the other side to vote for it in a committee, and it takes only one or two "establishment" candidates as they're known to kill it by saying "nay" when the clerk calls their name.
Sure, you can offer whatever it is as an amendment to some other bill, but those are easily defeated as well if they are even allowed by the Rules Committee. This is the way it's designed to run - it is meant to encourage compromise, working together, and actual governance. However, the "fringe" has grown to the point of being able to disrupt the "establishment" so we get the shit show we have in Congress today. Votes on strict party lines, and the GOP eating their own and slapping moderates with labels like 'RINO' and offering up primary challengers because the guys that the party holds up to be the highest standard - the Reagan Republicans, are Republican In Name Only now due to the massive shift to the conservative.
Actual moderates and congress critters that would like to see the government actually run and accomplish things are a dying breed. They get flanked by their own wingnuts in primaries, and then get bashed for being too [conservative|liberal] in the general once they've survived the primary by pandering to 'the base' with hundreds of hours of YouTube video to back it up.
I like the concept, but we already have rules that are easily circumvented about "no collusion" between a SuperPAC and a campaign. Laughable loopholes you could fly a C-130 loaded with trucks through.
The problem is that we have elected lawmakers making the election laws. It's a profound conflict of interest that is oft ignored.
Except what you are describing is not a primary election. You are describing a general election with some kind of run-off later. That's perfectly fine, but the primaries are specifically to help the parties (and there's nothing saying that the Socialist / Libertarian / Green / etc. parties can't have a primary) figure out who they are running in the general election.
There is an interesting legal argument that by not setting open standards for who will be allowed into the debate (polling above X%, etc) that the debate could be seen as an illegal contribution by the media company to the campaigns. This is why CNN et. al. always post these rules, so as to head off any weasel-minded legal nonsense.
If it's a completely malicious act performed by someone who feels entitled to a particular patch of asphalt that they don't even own, that causes me thousands of dollars worth of damage and depreciation, then yes, they should see the inside of a jail.
If it's an actual accident, then no. The difference should be astoundingly clear - he's not talking about a simple scratch or door-ding, he's talking about rubbing a key down the entire length of the car in order to 'teach someone a lesson'.
Intent matters.
For the record, I don't park in spaces with EV chargers available to them. But costing someone thousands of dollars because you are an entitled prick is not an option in civil society.
There are some here, they're starting to pop up here and there. Yes, they are more rare than you will find on the west coast, but they do exist.
(Of course, it depends on where you are in Ohio. If you're out in the Southeast portion of the state, you're probably correct in that there is maybe 1 per 100 sq. miles.)
The property owner probably doesn't want to trench their entire lot to get electrics out to the edge. Sure, there might already be lighting out there, but can that circuit handle the current / voltage necessary?
Yeah, I didn't understand this either. That seems like the polite, neighborly thing to do with a shared resource. Whoever wrote the summary (if not the article) is a whining hipster douchebag - god forbid you should stop hogging a resource that other people need when you're not using it.
Yeah, because clearly vandalism is a fantastic way to get your message across and not cause further problems.
I hope you get caught on camera causing someone financial harm, so that you and your pretentious bullshit can spend some time in jail and learn what real hardship is like.
And when the federal ITC expires in January (should Congress do nothing, which is what they do best) it will still be break-even (or better) with grid power in 25 of 50 states. And with a huge manufacturing plant opening in New York next year that is mass-producing modular panels with 22% efficiency, the cost will dive further.
Sure, it's not the absolute most efficient panel out there, but the design is ready to manufacture, doesn't use stupidly expensive materials (GaAs), and isn't subject to stiff import tariffs.
In the old days of pre-WiFi home networking, there used to be a scheme referred to as HPNA, or Home Phone Line Networking where it would carve holes in the frequencies it used on your phone wiring so as to not interrupt analog modems, regular phone calls, or DSL service.
Why do I have a feeling that our friendly telcos won't bother with such good-neighbor approaches to this technology?
And someone looking to shoot at people is not going to be deterred by a Class-C felony weapons charge.
"You know, I was going to shoot 25 people and get gunned down by police / incarcerated for the rest of my life, but that 15-day jail sentence for the weapons charge is just too much of a risk to take."
Probably market dynamics. Google doesn't have relationships directly with carriers except for with the Nexus devices. The carriers deal with the OEMs, and the OEMs deal with Google. Google has all the muscle, and none of the standing to get it done. The OEMs have none of the muscle, but all of the standing.
As Apple plays both the part of Google and OEM in their ecosystem, they have both the muscle and standing.
If we're talking about security, that starts with making sure your users can't just edit system files as they please. This is true for all platforms, ever; and possible on all current platforms up to and including Windows.
If some shit website that a user clicks on can just patch a DLL because you gave them admin, why the hell are you arguing about the damn hosts file?
Even though it's wildly off-topic, I guess I'm wondering why you would bother with a host file on each machine versus something at your router - just null-route the shit you would usually put in your host file and be done with it for the whole network at once.
But I guess maintaining a hosts file on hundreds of machines gives you something to do besides AC stalk people on Slashdot?
Like it really matters in the US - it's just a technology to blow through your arbitrarily apportioned data that much faster, so they can rape you for overages.
Slashdot Mirror
If it was about extradition to the US, why wouldn't they have done that when he was sitting in a UK court being granted bail?
I don't buy it.
Someone has been watching too much 24.
Embassy grounds are sovereign soil that belong to the foreign government in question. "Storming" an embassy would essentially be a military invasion of Ecuador, otherwise known as an unprovoked act of war. More than that, it would demonstrate a massive disregard for decades of international law and diplomatic procedure, and open up ALL of the US Embassies worldwide to attack.
It's an interesting theory. However, the election needs to end, and the work of government needs to begin at some point. Because of the ubiquity of cameras, Internet, microphones, etc., nobody ever gets to the part where they do the job they were sent to Congress to do, which is fairly well described in the Constitution - passing laws, passing spending bills, etc.
I'm curious as to when you think that the Republican base fell asleep, because even Reagan worked with Tip O'neill to get things done, and the country was far better off for it - they planted the seeds for the largest economic growth the world has ever seen. Even today, all the candidates for the Republican nomination shout from the rooftops about how great Reagan was.
Compromise != surrender, but there's a lot of people in the far right that think it does. As well as the far left, for that matter - they're just not as visible right now.
That has a lot to do with the rules established in the House and Senate - which go back to Thomas Jefferson. Literally. The house still uses his rulebook for how to run the shop.
Their "supposed agenda" as you put it, gets shut down in committee long before it can reach the floor. This happens with the ridiculous garbage bills from both fringe edges of the two parties - you'll never get the other side to vote for it in a committee, and it takes only one or two "establishment" candidates as they're known to kill it by saying "nay" when the clerk calls their name.
Sure, you can offer whatever it is as an amendment to some other bill, but those are easily defeated as well if they are even allowed by the Rules Committee. This is the way it's designed to run - it is meant to encourage compromise, working together, and actual governance. However, the "fringe" has grown to the point of being able to disrupt the "establishment" so we get the shit show we have in Congress today. Votes on strict party lines, and the GOP eating their own and slapping moderates with labels like 'RINO' and offering up primary challengers because the guys that the party holds up to be the highest standard - the Reagan Republicans, are Republican In Name Only now due to the massive shift to the conservative.
Actual moderates and congress critters that would like to see the government actually run and accomplish things are a dying breed. They get flanked by their own wingnuts in primaries, and then get bashed for being too [conservative|liberal] in the general once they've survived the primary by pandering to 'the base' with hundreds of hours of YouTube video to back it up.
I like the concept, but we already have rules that are easily circumvented about "no collusion" between a SuperPAC and a campaign. Laughable loopholes you could fly a C-130 loaded with trucks through.
The problem is that we have elected lawmakers making the election laws. It's a profound conflict of interest that is oft ignored.
Except what you are describing is not a primary election. You are describing a general election with some kind of run-off later. That's perfectly fine, but the primaries are specifically to help the parties (and there's nothing saying that the Socialist / Libertarian / Green / etc. parties can't have a primary) figure out who they are running in the general election.
There is an interesting legal argument that by not setting open standards for who will be allowed into the debate (polling above X%, etc) that the debate could be seen as an illegal contribution by the media company to the campaigns. This is why CNN et. al. always post these rules, so as to head off any weasel-minded legal nonsense.
If it's a completely malicious act performed by someone who feels entitled to a particular patch of asphalt that they don't even own, that causes me thousands of dollars worth of damage and depreciation, then yes, they should see the inside of a jail.
If it's an actual accident, then no. The difference should be astoundingly clear - he's not talking about a simple scratch or door-ding, he's talking about rubbing a key down the entire length of the car in order to 'teach someone a lesson'.
Intent matters.
For the record, I don't park in spaces with EV chargers available to them. But costing someone thousands of dollars because you are an entitled prick is not an option in civil society.
Except that most things they touch turn to shit. Like Symantec for hardware.
Also in Ohio.
There are some here, they're starting to pop up here and there. Yes, they are more rare than you will find on the west coast, but they do exist.
(Of course, it depends on where you are in Ohio. If you're out in the Southeast portion of the state, you're probably correct in that there is maybe 1 per 100 sq. miles.)
One word: logistics.
The property owner probably doesn't want to trench their entire lot to get electrics out to the edge. Sure, there might already be lighting out there, but can that circuit handle the current / voltage necessary?
Yeah, now go ahead and build overhead caternary wires on every road everywhere. Because that won't be absurdly expensive and horrifically ugly at all.
Yeah, I didn't understand this either. That seems like the polite, neighborly thing to do with a shared resource. Whoever wrote the summary (if not the article) is a whining hipster douchebag - god forbid you should stop hogging a resource that other people need when you're not using it.
Yeah, because clearly vandalism is a fantastic way to get your message across and not cause further problems.
I hope you get caught on camera causing someone financial harm, so that you and your pretentious bullshit can spend some time in jail and learn what real hardship is like.
And when the federal ITC expires in January (should Congress do nothing, which is what they do best) it will still be break-even (or better) with grid power in 25 of 50 states. And with a huge manufacturing plant opening in New York next year that is mass-producing modular panels with 22% efficiency, the cost will dive further.
Sure, it's not the absolute most efficient panel out there, but the design is ready to manufacture, doesn't use stupidly expensive materials (GaAs), and isn't subject to stiff import tariffs.
In the old days of pre-WiFi home networking, there used to be a scheme referred to as HPNA, or Home Phone Line Networking where it would carve holes in the frequencies it used on your phone wiring so as to not interrupt analog modems, regular phone calls, or DSL service.
Why do I have a feeling that our friendly telcos won't bother with such good-neighbor approaches to this technology?
Are you sure about that? It's inexpensive enough for roughly 30 million homes *right now*.
http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/16...
In fact, there's a solar installer that will happily sell you a PowerWall with your rooftop system...
And someone looking to shoot at people is not going to be deterred by a Class-C felony weapons charge.
"You know, I was going to shoot 25 people and get gunned down by police / incarcerated for the rest of my life, but that 15-day jail sentence for the weapons charge is just too much of a risk to take."
Except that their app was directly publishing content that is under NDA, which is likely againt the App Store terms and conditions.
I don't know why anyone expects that Apple *wouldn't* shit can their app that is directly in violation.
Probably market dynamics. Google doesn't have relationships directly with carriers except for with the Nexus devices. The carriers deal with the OEMs, and the OEMs deal with Google. Google has all the muscle, and none of the standing to get it done. The OEMs have none of the muscle, but all of the standing.
As Apple plays both the part of Google and OEM in their ecosystem, they have both the muscle and standing.
Not necessarily for corporations, but definitely for telcos.
They've had no sense of moral responsibility since telegraphs were in use.
Users editing host files?
If we're talking about security, that starts with making sure your users can't just edit system files as they please. This is true for all platforms, ever; and possible on all current platforms up to and including Windows.
If some shit website that a user clicks on can just patch a DLL because you gave them admin, why the hell are you arguing about the damn hosts file?
Even though it's wildly off-topic, I guess I'm wondering why you would bother with a host file on each machine versus something at your router - just null-route the shit you would usually put in your host file and be done with it for the whole network at once.
But I guess maintaining a hosts file on hundreds of machines gives you something to do besides AC stalk people on Slashdot?
Like it really matters in the US - it's just a technology to blow through your arbitrarily apportioned data that much faster, so they can rape you for overages.