Last Halloween I got suckered into running a 13k in costume; since the only costume I own is a TNG uniform and one of my friends wore a TOS redshirt it wasn't much of a leap to get smashed afterwards on Romulan Ale. Alas, I found out the hard way that my Playmates Type II Phaser doesn't work on the bouncer at our local pub. He's a big guy, so maybe I just needed to bump it up to maximum stun....
I've seen a lot of recipes over the years; the one that comes the closest to the effects of the "real" thing is equal parts Everclear, Bacardi 151, and Blue Curacao. It kind of tastes like gasoline but that's part of the appeal, along with pretending it was smuggled across the neutral zone after you've consumed too much of it....;)
Human beings are one of the few (the only?) species on this blue marble that can override their baser instincts in favor of reason. I personally know several people who quit smoking cold turkey after many years. It's simply a matter of will power. Don't whine about the "tobacco" companies if you can't summon it even when you know the consequences.
Considering that they also very definitely involve interstate commerce (the internet)
That reading would seem to permit the Feds to override any and all State laws against political subdivisions doing anything. Some States have decided as a matter of public policy not to engage in public solid waste collection but rather to rely on the private sector for such services. Can Uncle Sam override such decisions?
I would agree with the FCC's action if it was limited to overriding laws that preclude people from starting co-ops. I think it's a bridge too far for the FCC to tell a State that it must allow a political subdivision into the telecommunications business.
*shrug*, Rush makes his living by being a showman. I don't really care for the show, though as a human being I have respect for anyone that can laugh at himself, which Rush does (he has played himself on Family Guy, amongst other things), so there's that. If you're looking for an in-depth and impartial analysis of the issues you're probably not tuning into The Rush Limbaugh Show. Conservatives see a slippery slope here to further regulation. I don't entirely discount that argument and it's hard to escape the fact that the internet became what it is today by being unregulated and free of top-down mandates that impede innovation.
I'm generally supportive of what the FCC is trying to accomplish but I think the means they're using is questionable at best. They're also going after hypothetical impediments to innovation (the oft-discussed fast lane hasn't actually happened) while ignoring real threats (data caps) to innovation. Frankly I'd rather see them in the business of regulating tariffs than telling the ISPs how to run their networks (*), because I view data caps as a far more serious threat to internet video (the "killer app" that started this whole conversation) than a fast line that has yet to come to fruition.
(*) Here's a hypothetical for you: Is it "reasonable network management" to prioritize one's voice service over other applications? Keep in mind that circuit switched voice is fast becoming a thing of the past, on both wireless and wireline. On the wireline side you've got the cable company's VoIP service running on the same DOCSIS node as your neighbor's bittorrent download. On wireless you've got VoLTE replacing circuit switched voice, so voice is just another data application there as well, one that's competing for bandwidth on an increasingly congested wireless data network.
If the answer is "Yes" then you've advantaged Time Warner/Verizon/et. al's voice product over Skype and similar offerings. If the answer is "No" then you're placing phone calls at the same "best effort" level as your neighbor's porn addiction.
There's a cost for the "pipe", but how much does the "water" cost? If the cost is negligible, than it makes more sense to pay for the size of the pipe & not the amount of water flowing through it.
That model does make sense for the internet and very few people argue with pricing broke down by speed tiers. It breaks down when people expect that they can utilize 100% of their pipe 100% of the time. In my area Time Warner sells 50mbit/s connections and has eight DOCSIS channels on their coax plant. At ~42mbit/s per channel that's a maximum of 336mbit/s shared amongst all users on a particular node. Some simple division will reveal that less than seven users subscribing to the highest speed tier are enough to completely saturate that pipe. You can translate this into your water analogy easily enough by observing what happens to your water pressure when the fire department decides to flush the hydrants in your neighborhood.
Caps really aren't the best way to manage this "problem" because they ignore the actual limiting factor of bitrate. 95th percentile billing would make more sense but good luck explaining that to the masses.
Rush Limbaugh remembers the days of the fairness doctrine. There are a handful of politicians who think it should make a comeback. I'm not a big fan of Mr. Limbaugh's but in his defense if you read what has been said by supporters of the Fairness Doctrine it would send shivers up your spine:
The shooting is cause for the country to rethink parameters on free speech, Clyburn said from his office, just blocks from the South Carolina Statehouse. He wants standards put in place to guarantee balanced media coverage with a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, in addition to calling on elected officials and media pundits to use 'better judgment.'
Most people, left or right would recoil whenever a politician starts talking about a need to rethink the "parameters of free speech."
As a Libertarian, I am often dismayed by other Libertarians saying "all regulation is bad". But that's not the actual Libertarian philosophy. Which is "the minimum regulation that works". Too many have seemed to forget those all-important last 2 words.
If you're a Libertarian how do you feel about the second vote, the one where the FCC is claiming for itself the authority to preempt State level legislation against municipal broadband services? I am not a Libertarian, nor a Republican, but I find that vote extremely disturbing; it has always been the sole province of the States to set the parameters within which their political subdivisions operate. If New York State wishes to preclude my municipality from setting up an ISP what business is that of the FCC? Can the Feds also preempt a decision that precludes municipalities from operating solid waste services? Sewer services?
I am generally supportive of what the FCC is trying to do with Title II but they're going a bridge too far if they think it's appropriate to step into the middle of the relationship between States and their political subdivisions. Three of five unelected Federal bureaucrats do not get to override the parameters my State Legislature sets for my city.
That's somewhat of a stretch to say, considering that the language in Article III isn't as explicit as you claim
I never claimed it to be explicit, I merely pointed out that Article III vests the judiciary with the power to resolve cases and controversies arising under the Constitution. Judaical review stands to follow from that; if you dispute that Congress has the power to do X where else do you turn but the Judiciary?
This gives the court vastly more power than intended (as supported by Jefferson's words on the case) and has no effective check in any other branch (which makes it stand out as suspect anyway).
No effective check? Congress could increase the size of the court tomorrow and the President could appoint new members. It's been suggested before. Congress can also impeach Justices, if push comes to shove, for whatever reason it wishes, and there's no effective check on this power.
I really don't understand where you're coming from with this whole line of argument, except that you're sore over a few high profile cases. I'm sore about some of them too but I'm not ready to undermine one of the branches of Government because of it....
Sure, if you're using a burst transmission that doesn't wait for acknowledgments or the TCP window size to be set. My calculation totally took those variables into consideration. It's not as though I misplaced minutes for seconds or anything that stupid, it's not like that at all.:)
My entire argument is that judicial review, as it is, is not constitutional.
Your argument fails on the merits. See Article III snippet above. If the judiciary has the power to consider cases and controversies arising under the Constitution (this is spelled out in Article III, so I don't think you can dispute that it has such power) then how do you purpose that it exercise such power? Congress passes an infringing law, an aggrieved party sues, and then what happens?
Frankly I don't see how you can dispute the notion of judicial review. It really seems to me that you're just unhappy with some of the results (as I am, FYI) so you deem it appropriate to condemn the entire system. Why exactly do you think it's unconstitutional?
That is a very odd way to describe Germany during that period.
The Four Powers (Soviet Union, later Russia, plus France, the UK, and US) did not renounce their powers in Germany until the ratification of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany. I may not have been a total occupation where the occupying powers are running the trains and fixing traffic lights, but Germany wasn't a fully sovereign member of the community of nations either.
If your argument is that any power usurped by the government that isn't contested by that same government is the law of the land
Apparently you don't know what the words "de facto" mean.
I think that the zany antics displayed in Wickard v. Filburn, and the near complete absence of a check on that sort of topsy-turvy decision, pretty clearly demonstrate that the Supreme Court is not really suited to handle judicial review.
And what do you think would be better suited? I can't fathom that someone smart enough to know about Marbury would want Parliamentary Supremacy.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority
Congress passes a law, the President signs it, some aggrieved third party says it's unconstitutional. Exactly who do you think should review said law and make the final determination? Near as I can tell, your entire argument against judicial review is that you're unhappy with some of the results.
What actually is the "law of the land" is on pretty shaky ground, constitutionally.
Not really. Congress and the Executive never disputed Marbury v. Madison, therefore it is the de facto law of the land. I find it highly unlikely that either branch of Government is going to contest it now, 200 years after the fact. Congress would be best equipped to do so, since they exercise a lot of power over the structure of the judiciary (not to mention their budget), but do you honestly see any appetite in today's political climate to challenge the concept of judicial review? More to the point, do you really think it's a good idea?
I want to meet the person who has no drinking experience that can down half a liter of vodka without throwing most of it back up. Keep in mind there's a time component too, if you kill a bottle of vodka over the course of an evening you're going to just wake up slightly dehydrated (good stuff) or with a nasty hangover (bottom shelf); if you kill it in five minutes you're liable to have some problems.....
In 1868, the Great Powers agreed under the Saint Petersburg Declaration to ban exploding bullets, which by spreading metal fragments inside a victim’s body could cause more suffering than the regular kind
Which sounds awesome on paper but is completely meaningless in the real world. NATO's standard rifle cartridge relies on tumbling and fragmentation for its terminal effects. I'm not certain why it matters if a bullet fragments because of a small explosive charge or because of the design of the projectile; the end result is the same.
Anytime you are being attacked, any and all means of self defense should be OK. If you don't want to get gassed, stay the fuck out of our country.
It's called proportionality; it applies on both the individual level (I can't shoot you in response to an open handed slap across my face) and the nation-state level (you can't nuke a country in response to a platoon of infantryman crossing the frontier)
If you want to acquire political power from the barrel of a gun you should probably stop and ask yourself if you can actually win before you cross the Rubicon.
And the Supreme Court says that the Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce extends even to plants that you grow for personal use with no intention of resale.
I don't really like or agree with those rulings but they are the law of the land, for better or worse....
He served in the United States Army, before the war, as a Commissioned Officer, which by definition means he swore an oath to preserve and protect the United States. If you're worried about your State one day needing to leave the Union then you probably shouldn't be swearing oaths to preserve the Union.
The only difference between them is that most in the South say themselves not just as Americans, but ultimately as Virginians, Georgians, Mississippians, etc.
Irrelevant. Lee and several other leading figures in the Confederacy (including Davis) swore oaths to the United States. They weren't common men that joined the Confederate Army having no prior allegiance to the United States other than birthright. They had served the United States and sworn oaths to protect her. Parse this part of the 14th Amendment:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
A traitor is someone who betrays their home
The definition of treason in the United States is "levying war against them" or giving "aid and comfort" to their enemies. That's exactly what Lee, Davis, et. al did.
Slashdot Mirror
Last Halloween I got suckered into running a 13k in costume; since the only costume I own is a TNG uniform and one of my friends wore a TOS redshirt it wasn't much of a leap to get smashed afterwards on Romulan Ale. Alas, I found out the hard way that my Playmates Type II Phaser doesn't work on the bouncer at our local pub. He's a big guy, so maybe I just needed to bump it up to maximum stun....
I've seen a lot of recipes over the years; the one that comes the closest to the effects of the "real" thing is equal parts Everclear, Bacardi 151, and Blue Curacao. It kind of tastes like gasoline but that's part of the appeal, along with pretending it was smuggled across the neutral zone after you've consumed too much of it.... ;)
Human beings are one of the few (the only?) species on this blue marble that can override their baser instincts in favor of reason. I personally know several people who quit smoking cold turkey after many years. It's simply a matter of will power. Don't whine about the "tobacco" companies if you can't summon it even when you know the consequences.
Considering that they also very definitely involve interstate commerce (the internet)
That reading would seem to permit the Feds to override any and all State laws against political subdivisions doing anything. Some States have decided as a matter of public policy not to engage in public solid waste collection but rather to rely on the private sector for such services. Can Uncle Sam override such decisions?
I would agree with the FCC's action if it was limited to overriding laws that preclude people from starting co-ops. I think it's a bridge too far for the FCC to tell a State that it must allow a political subdivision into the telecommunications business.
*shrug*, Rush makes his living by being a showman. I don't really care for the show, though as a human being I have respect for anyone that can laugh at himself, which Rush does (he has played himself on Family Guy, amongst other things), so there's that. If you're looking for an in-depth and impartial analysis of the issues you're probably not tuning into The Rush Limbaugh Show. Conservatives see a slippery slope here to further regulation. I don't entirely discount that argument and it's hard to escape the fact that the internet became what it is today by being unregulated and free of top-down mandates that impede innovation.
I'm generally supportive of what the FCC is trying to accomplish but I think the means they're using is questionable at best. They're also going after hypothetical impediments to innovation (the oft-discussed fast lane hasn't actually happened) while ignoring real threats (data caps) to innovation. Frankly I'd rather see them in the business of regulating tariffs than telling the ISPs how to run their networks (*), because I view data caps as a far more serious threat to internet video (the "killer app" that started this whole conversation) than a fast line that has yet to come to fruition.
(*) Here's a hypothetical for you: Is it "reasonable network management" to prioritize one's voice service over other applications? Keep in mind that circuit switched voice is fast becoming a thing of the past, on both wireless and wireline. On the wireline side you've got the cable company's VoIP service running on the same DOCSIS node as your neighbor's bittorrent download. On wireless you've got VoLTE replacing circuit switched voice, so voice is just another data application there as well, one that's competing for bandwidth on an increasingly congested wireless data network.
If the answer is "Yes" then you've advantaged Time Warner/Verizon/et. al's voice product over Skype and similar offerings. If the answer is "No" then you're placing phone calls at the same "best effort" level as your neighbor's porn addiction.
There's a cost for the "pipe", but how much does the "water" cost? If the cost is negligible, than it makes more sense to pay for the size of the pipe & not the amount of water flowing through it.
That model does make sense for the internet and very few people argue with pricing broke down by speed tiers. It breaks down when people expect that they can utilize 100% of their pipe 100% of the time. In my area Time Warner sells 50mbit/s connections and has eight DOCSIS channels on their coax plant. At ~42mbit/s per channel that's a maximum of 336mbit/s shared amongst all users on a particular node. Some simple division will reveal that less than seven users subscribing to the highest speed tier are enough to completely saturate that pipe. You can translate this into your water analogy easily enough by observing what happens to your water pressure when the fire department decides to flush the hydrants in your neighborhood.
Caps really aren't the best way to manage this "problem" because they ignore the actual limiting factor of bitrate. 95th percentile billing would make more sense but good luck explaining that to the masses.
Rush Limbaugh remembers the days of the fairness doctrine. There are a handful of politicians who think it should make a comeback. I'm not a big fan of Mr. Limbaugh's but in his defense if you read what has been said by supporters of the Fairness Doctrine it would send shivers up your spine:
The shooting is cause for the country to rethink parameters on free speech, Clyburn said from his office, just blocks from the South Carolina Statehouse. He wants standards put in place to guarantee balanced media coverage with a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, in addition to calling on elected officials and media pundits to use 'better judgment.'
Most people, left or right would recoil whenever a politician starts talking about a need to rethink the "parameters of free speech."
As a Libertarian, I am often dismayed by other Libertarians saying "all regulation is bad". But that's not the actual Libertarian philosophy. Which is "the minimum regulation that works". Too many have seemed to forget those all-important last 2 words.
If you're a Libertarian how do you feel about the second vote, the one where the FCC is claiming for itself the authority to preempt State level legislation against municipal broadband services? I am not a Libertarian, nor a Republican, but I find that vote extremely disturbing; it has always been the sole province of the States to set the parameters within which their political subdivisions operate. If New York State wishes to preclude my municipality from setting up an ISP what business is that of the FCC? Can the Feds also preempt a decision that precludes municipalities from operating solid waste services? Sewer services?
I am generally supportive of what the FCC is trying to do with Title II but they're going a bridge too far if they think it's appropriate to step into the middle of the relationship between States and their political subdivisions. Three of five unelected Federal bureaucrats do not get to override the parameters my State Legislature sets for my city.
That's somewhat of a stretch to say, considering that the language in Article III isn't as explicit as you claim
I never claimed it to be explicit, I merely pointed out that Article III vests the judiciary with the power to resolve cases and controversies arising under the Constitution. Judaical review stands to follow from that; if you dispute that Congress has the power to do X where else do you turn but the Judiciary?
This gives the court vastly more power than intended (as supported by Jefferson's words on the case) and has no effective check in any other branch (which makes it stand out as suspect anyway).
No effective check? Congress could increase the size of the court tomorrow and the President could appoint new members. It's been suggested before. Congress can also impeach Justices, if push comes to shove, for whatever reason it wishes, and there's no effective check on this power.
I really don't understand where you're coming from with this whole line of argument, except that you're sore over a few high profile cases. I'm sore about some of them too but I'm not ready to undermine one of the branches of Government because of it....
Sure, if you're using a burst transmission that doesn't wait for acknowledgments or the TCP window size to be set. My calculation totally took those variables into consideration. It's not as though I misplaced minutes for seconds or anything that stupid, it's not like that at all. :)
My entire argument is that judicial review, as it is, is not constitutional.
Your argument fails on the merits. See Article III snippet above. If the judiciary has the power to consider cases and controversies arising under the Constitution (this is spelled out in Article III, so I don't think you can dispute that it has such power) then how do you purpose that it exercise such power? Congress passes an infringing law, an aggrieved party sues, and then what happens?
Frankly I don't see how you can dispute the notion of judicial review. It really seems to me that you're just unhappy with some of the results (as I am, FYI) so you deem it appropriate to condemn the entire system. Why exactly do you think it's unconstitutional?
Any newselberries on what kind of modulation is used?
Morse code? ;)
But my guess is that one war crime does not justify an other.
You'd be wrong.
Not counting TCP and other protocol overhead of course.....
I bet you're a fan of gun control too.
That is a very odd way to describe Germany during that period.
The Four Powers (Soviet Union, later Russia, plus France, the UK, and US) did not renounce their powers in Germany until the ratification of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany. I may not have been a total occupation where the occupying powers are running the trains and fixing traffic lights, but Germany wasn't a fully sovereign member of the community of nations either.
If your argument is that any power usurped by the government that isn't contested by that same government is the law of the land
Apparently you don't know what the words "de facto" mean.
I think that the zany antics displayed in Wickard v. Filburn, and the near complete absence of a check on that sort of topsy-turvy decision, pretty clearly demonstrate that the Supreme Court is not really suited to handle judicial review.
And what do you think would be better suited? I can't fathom that someone smart enough to know about Marbury would want Parliamentary Supremacy.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority
Congress passes a law, the President signs it, some aggrieved third party says it's unconstitutional. Exactly who do you think should review said law and make the final determination? Near as I can tell, your entire argument against judicial review is that you're unhappy with some of the results.
What actually is the "law of the land" is on pretty shaky ground, constitutionally.
Not really. Congress and the Executive never disputed Marbury v. Madison, therefore it is the de facto law of the land. I find it highly unlikely that either branch of Government is going to contest it now, 200 years after the fact. Congress would be best equipped to do so, since they exercise a lot of power over the structure of the judiciary (not to mention their budget), but do you honestly see any appetite in today's political climate to challenge the concept of judicial review? More to the point, do you really think it's a good idea?
I want to meet the person who has no drinking experience that can down half a liter of vodka without throwing most of it back up. Keep in mind there's a time component too, if you kill a bottle of vodka over the course of an evening you're going to just wake up slightly dehydrated (good stuff) or with a nasty hangover (bottom shelf); if you kill it in five minutes you're liable to have some problems.....
In 1868, the Great Powers agreed under the Saint Petersburg Declaration to ban exploding bullets, which by spreading metal fragments inside a victim’s body could cause more suffering than the regular kind
Which sounds awesome on paper but is completely meaningless in the real world. NATO's standard rifle cartridge relies on tumbling and fragmentation for its terminal effects. I'm not certain why it matters if a bullet fragments because of a small explosive charge or because of the design of the projectile; the end result is the same.
Alcohol is more dangerous as it is easy to consume enough to kill you. Pot is not.
Umm; it's pretty hard for someone without tolerance to get to the LD50 of ethanol without first throwing up or passing out.
Anytime you are being attacked, any and all means of self defense should be OK. If you don't want to get gassed, stay the fuck out of our country.
It's called proportionality; it applies on both the individual level (I can't shoot you in response to an open handed slap across my face) and the nation-state level (you can't nuke a country in response to a platoon of infantryman crossing the frontier)
If you want to acquire political power from the barrel of a gun you should probably stop and ask yourself if you can actually win before you cross the Rubicon.
And the Supreme Court says that the Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce extends even to plants that you grow for personal use with no intention of resale.
I don't really like or agree with those rulings but they are the law of the land, for better or worse....
And those men like Robert E. Lee weren't traitors
He served in the United States Army, before the war, as a Commissioned Officer, which by definition means he swore an oath to preserve and protect the United States. If you're worried about your State one day needing to leave the Union then you probably shouldn't be swearing oaths to preserve the Union.
The only difference between them is that most in the South say themselves not just as Americans, but ultimately as Virginians, Georgians, Mississippians, etc.
Irrelevant. Lee and several other leading figures in the Confederacy (including Davis) swore oaths to the United States. They weren't common men that joined the Confederate Army having no prior allegiance to the United States other than birthright. They had served the United States and sworn oaths to protect her. Parse this part of the 14th Amendment:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
A traitor is someone who betrays their home
The definition of treason in the United States is "levying war against them" or giving "aid and comfort" to their enemies. That's exactly what Lee, Davis, et. al did.