So in other words, by your own argument, he could have divorced himself from it politically without affecting the national defense, because his veto would have been overridden anyway.
By not doing this, he owns that bill with all its baggage politically, signing statement or no signing statement.
Doesn't sound very politically savvy, does he? Maybe his integrity is lacking as well?
I'm not shocked; I'm just taking categorical issue with just about everything you said.
President Obama is both the CHIEF EXECUTIVE of the nation and COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the nation's military. That means he has COMPLETE power to set and modify policy, in both domestic and foreign affairs. The FBI, CIA, Federal Marshals, military, and all the other executive apparatus of the nation report to secretaries HE appoints (with fairly rubber-stamp Senate approval), and he controls the cabinet secretaries - ultimately by untempered power of dismissal. The Congress can't order Obama to keep Guantanamo open. But he could close it tomorrow if he wished.
The only exceptions to this are independent authorities like the FCC. NOBODY can tell them what to do within the broad powers granted to them.
Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court can issue orders to the FBI, CIA, Federal Marshals, or military. But Obama can, through his secretaries. How many divisions do Congress or the Supreme Court have? None; just like the Pope.
All the Presidents know this. You can tell, because when they are really dead set against something, they veto it, and federally, vetos seldom are overridden. He can threaten to shut down the government if he doesn't get legislation and budgets he wants. Presidents have done this. They have never been impeached for it.
Obama could be a tyrant just as much as he wants, and nobody can do a thing about it beyond voting him out the next time his term expires, or impeaching him. Just the way Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and simply PROCLAIMED emancipation of the slaves. So he is accused of being a tyrant? So what? A lot of presidents have been accused of being tyrants to one degree or another.
There is a mirror image to the behavior to which you object, and it is even more assholeish. If you leave a prudent space ahead of you in your lane, a guy on your left will immediately cut in to try to pass the guy ahead of HIM, and erase the safety gap. And another. And another. And if you slow down because you are REALLY determined to have a space space in front of you, the stream of cars cutting DIRECTLY in front of you (no matter HOW much room there is) will become a crescendo. And there will always be a percentage of them who cut in front of you and immediately SLOW DOWN to below your own speed.
Another good Boston rule is that if you're passing most of the other cars most of the time, these other drivers, always assumed inferior to you in skill and safety, are less likely to fuck up passing YOU. And if you just STAY in the passing lane ALL of the time, you greatly reduce the number of dangerous merges to which you expose yourself. Also, the faster you complete your trip in general, and the faster you get across an intersection, the shorter your period of exposure to dangerous traffic.
But signaling DOES serve on balance a useful and beneficial purpose. If you see a vehicle which is signaling, that is a sign that vehicle is LIKELY (not certain) to be changing its baseline. Not necessarily in the direction of the signal; never assume that for a certainty. There is always a percentage of drivers who signal one way and turn the other, just because they are uncoordinated. There are also the looney tunes who leave their left turn signal on from the time they start to pass until they have merged all the way back in ahead of you. Most of these latter just do not understand the logic of signaling one way to start passing and the other way to complete. Nobody ever explained it to them. And there will be some drivers who leave their signal on for hours because they just don't realize it's on and don't have a good habit of periodically checking everything.
But just seeing a signal as a general alert will give you a better statistical chance of recognizing that some maneuver is likely to occur soon, and recognizing that sooner than otherwise.
Yeah, traffic code has a reason. Maybe that's why in my state it says that if there is no traffic which could possibly be affected you don't have to signal.
This has happened in many American and western companies, at a grossly accelerating pace in recent years. Useless fucking business management droids don't have a clue what makes a society flourish, and they can do a lot to destroy it.
Then don't use them in that particular application, genius. The lights I use only a small number of hours per year I left as incandescents. They don't matter anyway; the annual expense for a whole bunch of them is negligible. Attic and cellar lights, front porch I very seldom light, rooms I don't use much, etc. That leaves the lights that matter from an annual cost perspective, all of which I have changed to CFL and LED.
I'll see your anecdote and raise you with my own. I have a CFL that I run approximately 20 hours per day, once on, once off. I have had it in use for 4 years; that's 29,200 hours. It's rated for 8000 hr. Still seems as good as new.
I have a fair number of CFL's I use about 4 hours per day, or 1460 hr per year, that have been in use for about the same 4 years (5840 hr total) and still work fine. One of them is horizontally mounted in a fully enclosed fixture.
Incandescents are typically rated for 1000 hr, but if you turn them on and off infrequently, even they last a lot longer than that.
The only lights I turn on and off frequently are LEDs, and those don't care if you turn them on and off a million times.
I call bullshit on the "cost too much" when you look at the long term for LEDs. Maybe not for every bulb in the house, including ones used a very low percentage of the time, but for those you use as little as 1000 hr/yr (2.73 hr/day), an equivalent LED is a LOT cheaper than a 60 watt incandescent.
Incandescent, 60 watts * 1000 hrs/yr = 60 kWh/yr = $10.50/yr = $210.00 in 20 years - plus $10.00 for 20 bulbs in 20 years. Total for 20 years = $220.00
LED, 12 watts * 1000 hrs/yr = 12 kWh/yr = $2.10/yr = $42.00 in 20 years - plus $25.00 for 1 "bulb" in 20 years. Total for 20 years = $67.00
And yes, the Philips #285106 12 watt 800 lumen A19 "bulb" is rated to last over 20,000 hr. It is dimmable, and I'll go out on a limb and guarantee it will not make you puke. This is not the usual crappy puke-green bad-light-pattern LED. The warm light it makes is a dead ringer for incandescent light and the pattern is very close to an incandescent. If you have trouble buying it for $25, just order two of them on line from Home Depot and they will waive shipping charges (to USA at any rate). Since when does having it in "your local store" make any difference in the on line age?
I used 17.5 US cents per kWh for my calculations; it's what my electricity costs and I believe its a fair representation of world rates; of course they vary from a lot less than that near the Hoover Dam to more than that in some places. Anyway, the break even point for the LED over the incandescent is clearly way below 10 US cents per kWh.
They do, of course. In fact they are ideally suited. How do I know? Well, not only do the better new refrigerators come with LEDs, I screwed an A19 LED "bulb" assembly into the socket in the freezer compartment of my own refrigerator and it works perfectly and will doubtless greatly outlive me in that nice cool environment.
Categorically incorrect. LEDs work fine inside a refrigerator. In fact they are far superior for that use than an incandescent. Freezers in stores use them. Many higher end refrigerators now come with LEDs as a selling point. I just screwed an A19 replacement LED "bulb" assembly into the incandescent socket in the freezer compartment of my refrigerator and instantly enjoyed more brightness and less waste heat from 8 watts that I was getting from 40 before.
It is fluorescents that are not well suited to cold environments like refrigerators or outdoors in winter in a cold climate. And for stoves, yes, only an incandescent will do.
OK, I'll tell you who DOESN'T use auto-pay. Anybody with half a brain, that's who. Think about it. All the people who have heard about those people who get a cell bill for $1,000,078.82 out of the blue one month when the actual amount is supposed to be $78.82. People who don't want to get a notice from their bank that they are over draft by around a million bucks. That tends to ruin your day.
The guy who doesn't trust any dumb robot service to push the "pay" button sleeps a little more secure.
He's just trying to kill off his squirrels so he can get enjoyment from watching his birds feed. Hmmm. That brings up an interesting thought. Ever see a fat bird? They're eating the same stuff...
Slashdot Mirror
So in other words, by your own argument, he could have divorced himself from it politically without affecting the national defense, because his veto would have been overridden anyway.
By not doing this, he owns that bill with all its baggage politically, signing statement or no signing statement.
Doesn't sound very politically savvy, does he? Maybe his integrity is lacking as well?
I'm not shocked; I'm just taking categorical issue with just about everything you said.
President Obama is both the CHIEF EXECUTIVE of the nation and COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the nation's military. That means he has COMPLETE power to set and modify policy, in both domestic and foreign affairs. The FBI, CIA, Federal Marshals, military, and all the other executive apparatus of the nation report to secretaries HE appoints (with fairly rubber-stamp Senate approval), and he controls the cabinet secretaries - ultimately by untempered power of dismissal. The Congress can't order Obama to keep Guantanamo open. But he could close it tomorrow if he wished.
The only exceptions to this are independent authorities like the FCC. NOBODY can tell them what to do within the broad powers granted to them.
Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court can issue orders to the FBI, CIA, Federal Marshals, or military. But Obama can, through his secretaries. How many divisions do Congress or the Supreme Court have? None; just like the Pope.
All the Presidents know this. You can tell, because when they are really dead set against something, they veto it, and federally, vetos seldom are overridden. He can threaten to shut down the government if he doesn't get legislation and budgets he wants. Presidents have done this. They have never been impeached for it.
Obama could be a tyrant just as much as he wants, and nobody can do a thing about it beyond voting him out the next time his term expires, or impeaching him. Just the way Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and simply PROCLAIMED emancipation of the slaves. So he is accused of being a tyrant? So what? A lot of presidents have been accused of being tyrants to one degree or another.
There is a mirror image to the behavior to which you object, and it is even more assholeish. If you leave a prudent space ahead of you in your lane, a guy on your left will immediately cut in to try to pass the guy ahead of HIM, and erase the safety gap. And another. And another. And if you slow down because you are REALLY determined to have a space space in front of you, the stream of cars cutting DIRECTLY in front of you (no matter HOW much room there is) will become a crescendo. And there will always be a percentage of them who cut in front of you and immediately SLOW DOWN to below your own speed.
Another good Boston rule is that if you're passing most of the other cars most of the time, these other drivers, always assumed inferior to you in skill and safety, are less likely to fuck up passing YOU. And if you just STAY in the passing lane ALL of the time, you greatly reduce the number of dangerous merges to which you expose yourself. Also, the faster you complete your trip in general, and the faster you get across an intersection, the shorter your period of exposure to dangerous traffic.
How do you know he is not a good blind spot checker? You're assuming things you don't know.
But signaling DOES serve on balance a useful and beneficial purpose. If you see a vehicle which is signaling, that is a sign that vehicle is LIKELY (not certain) to be changing its baseline. Not necessarily in the direction of the signal; never assume that for a certainty. There is always a percentage of drivers who signal one way and turn the other, just because they are uncoordinated. There are also the looney tunes who leave their left turn signal on from the time they start to pass until they have merged all the way back in ahead of you. Most of these latter just do not understand the logic of signaling one way to start passing and the other way to complete. Nobody ever explained it to them. And there will be some drivers who leave their signal on for hours because they just don't realize it's on and don't have a good habit of periodically checking everything.
But just seeing a signal as a general alert will give you a better statistical chance of recognizing that some maneuver is likely to occur soon, and recognizing that sooner than otherwise.
Yeah, traffic code has a reason. Maybe that's why in my state it says that if there is no traffic which could possibly be affected you don't have to signal.
This has happened in many American and western companies, at a grossly accelerating pace in recent years. Useless fucking business management droids don't have a clue what makes a society flourish, and they can do a lot to destroy it.
Capitalism at work, guys.
Not capriciously on purpose, genius. Not unless the USER WANTS to take it down or it fails.
Go to Hell, Google lackey. He has made a valid point (unlike you).
Damn right he is.
Then don't use them in that particular application, genius. The lights I use only a small number of hours per year I left as incandescents. They don't matter anyway; the annual expense for a whole bunch of them is negligible. Attic and cellar lights, front porch I very seldom light, rooms I don't use much, etc. That leaves the lights that matter from an annual cost perspective, all of which I have changed to CFL and LED.
I'll see your anecdote and raise you with my own. I have a CFL that I run approximately 20 hours per day, once on, once off. I have had it in use for 4 years; that's 29,200 hours. It's rated for 8000 hr. Still seems as good as new.
I have a fair number of CFL's I use about 4 hours per day, or 1460 hr per year, that have been in use for about the same 4 years (5840 hr total) and still work fine. One of them is horizontally mounted in a fully enclosed fixture.
Incandescents are typically rated for 1000 hr, but if you turn them on and off infrequently, even they last a lot longer than that.
The only lights I turn on and off frequently are LEDs, and those don't care if you turn them on and off a million times.
Since LEDs are already substantially cheaper if life cycle terms than incandescents, just why are they not great already? See this analysis.
Running halogens at reduced voltage wears them out quickly.
I call bullshit on the "cost too much" when you look at the long term for LEDs. Maybe not for every bulb in the house, including ones used a very low percentage of the time, but for those you use as little as 1000 hr/yr (2.73 hr/day), an equivalent LED is a LOT cheaper than a 60 watt incandescent.
Incandescent, 60 watts * 1000 hrs/yr = 60 kWh/yr = $10.50/yr = $210.00 in 20 years - plus $10.00 for 20 bulbs in 20 years.
Total for 20 years = $220.00
LED, 12 watts * 1000 hrs/yr = 12 kWh/yr = $2.10/yr = $42.00 in 20 years - plus $25.00 for 1 "bulb" in 20 years.
Total for 20 years = $67.00
And yes, the Philips #285106 12 watt 800 lumen A19 "bulb" is rated to last over 20,000 hr. It is dimmable, and I'll go out on a limb and guarantee it will not make you puke. This is not the usual crappy puke-green bad-light-pattern LED. The warm light it makes is a dead ringer for incandescent light and the pattern is very close to an incandescent. If you have trouble buying it for $25, just order two of them on line from Home Depot and they will waive shipping charges (to USA at any rate). Since when does having it in "your local store" make any difference in the on line age?
I used 17.5 US cents per kWh for my calculations; it's what my electricity costs and I believe its a fair representation of world rates; of course they vary from a lot less than that near the Hoover Dam to more than that in some places. Anyway, the break even point for the LED over the incandescent is clearly way below 10 US cents per kWh.
They do, of course. In fact they are ideally suited. How do I know? Well, not only do the better new refrigerators come with LEDs, I screwed an A19 LED "bulb" assembly into the socket in the freezer compartment of my own refrigerator and it works perfectly and will doubtless greatly outlive me in that nice cool environment.
Categorically incorrect. LEDs work fine inside a refrigerator. In fact they are far superior for that use than an incandescent. Freezers in stores use them. Many higher end refrigerators now come with LEDs as a selling point. I just screwed an A19 replacement LED "bulb" assembly into the incandescent socket in the freezer compartment of my refrigerator and instantly enjoyed more brightness and less waste heat from 8 watts that I was getting from 40 before.
It is fluorescents that are not well suited to cold environments like refrigerators or outdoors in winter in a cold climate. And for stoves, yes, only an incandescent will do.
It's no use. This technique can't be explained without a picture.
OK, I'll tell you who DOESN'T use auto-pay. Anybody with half a brain, that's who. Think about it. All the people who have heard about those people who get a cell bill for $1,000,078.82 out of the blue one month when the actual amount is supposed to be $78.82. People who don't want to get a notice from their bank that they are over draft by around a million bucks. That tends to ruin your day.
The guy who doesn't trust any dumb robot service to push the "pay" button sleeps a little more secure.
Maybe English is not your native language, but if it is, you have a problem with logic.
I feel better hearing your story, because chewing food every day with my jaw is regular exercise.
Oops, you're in for it, mate. You said "designed", not "evolved".
He's just trying to kill off his squirrels so he can get enjoyment from watching his birds feed. Hmmm. That brings up an interesting thought. Ever see a fat bird? They're eating the same stuff ...
Not only that, but not smoking a single cigarette in your life is no guarantee at all that you won't get cancer at age 10.