Why be either? Sounds like he just looked through the guy's slashdot posts. I'd only be impressed if he linked all this information to the guy's name or something that might actually identify him.
I don't know how to link a source but an article called "USING STATUTES TO SET LEGISLATIVE RULES: ENTRENCHMENT, SEPARATION OF POWERS, AND THE RULES OF PROCEEDINGS CLAUSE" has this to say:
"both chambers of Congress appear to have come quite firmly to believe that the
Constitution grants them the prerogative to abrogate by unilateral action
any statutory provision that concerns internal affairs within the purview of
the rules power. Their parliamentary guides are confident on the matter,
stating that it “has been settled that Congress may not by law interfere with
the constitutional right of a future House to make is own rules."
The article can be found here: http://www.student.virginia.edu/~jalopy/PDFs/19-4/345-410.PDF
The problem with this idea is that one congress cannot bind future congresses to any particular rules. Each congress decides how they will run things. The only steadfast requirements are the ones laid down in the constitution (like only the house can introduce spending legislation) and those that have just been around so long that there isn't any reason to change (like the various committees and chamber leadership positions).
No, the real problem is the way congressional rules are handled. Say a large spending bill is being pushed through congress. The spending bill will do all kinds of wonderful things for all kinds of people. Everyone agrees that this is a great bill, except that one annoying senator that doesn't like some random amendment that was slipped in. Maybe the amendment says that on the next census, everyone's dna will be collected. Maybe, that isn't such a good thing. Maybe, even if it were a good thing, it shouldn't be added to a giant spending bill. The senator votes NO on the bill, and now his rivals say "just look at the voting record. He is obviously against tax cuts! He is evil and wants to eat your babies!" I'm from the U.S. but I'm guessing that the same problem happens in the UK.
In most parts of the U.S. we vote for individuals. A lot of ballots have the option of straight ticket voting, but the actual votes are still for each individual. I don't want my representatives voting along party lines. Say I live in the 123rd district of Texas. I want my representatives voting along the lines of the citizens in the 123rd district of Texas, not the national party stance.
I knew javascript was used on a lot more pages lately, but I had no idea just how much it is used until I installed noscript. Now I find myself constantly re-enabling various webpages when I need that functionality.
You answered your own question. It is 3D and had Johnny Depp. Maybe you don't care, and I don't care, but those two points are definitely the cause of "the fuss."
Why, oh why does everyone keep telling the Chinese what to do with their country? Didn't you guys believe in freedom or something? Or does that not apply until you have troops stationed there?
Fix your own damn country first.
I believe in freedom of the people, not freedom of the government. I don't approve of China's censorship any more than I would approve of the U.S. government doing the same thing. Pointing out that we have our own problems doesn't invalidate the criticism of Chinese censorship.
True random shuffle will give you songs and orders you've already heard --- just as likely as any other song and order combination. With a decently large selection of music, the chance to randomly pick the exact same song and order combination as one you have recently heard is quite low. In other words, your randomization technique sucks.
You only pointed out one of your bad assumptions. Saying that 72% of votes made no difference at all to the outcome of the election is simply false. That 72% ensured that the other 479 seats were kept by the incumbent. Throw away that 72% of votes and the outcome of the election would be completely different! The argument that the votes given by the losing side are wasted only apply when talking about one position. When talking about a group of positions, voting to keep one position the same is just as relevant as voting for change.
Unfortunately, it will probably be your local police showing up at your doorstep, enforcing your own country's laws. That law being to comply with another country's laws. . .
No, GP is talking about how Texas and Louisiana share information, for instance. The U.S. "manipulation" of Mexico and Central America is a different issue entirely.
Good call. In fact, I DIDN'T remember. I do not have an IPhone and I forgot you can't take the batteries out of them. I guess we are back to the original question. Will IPhone batteries explode if placed in a microwave long enough to fry the rest of the phone?
That is a good point, unless the person you are throwing your sack full of grenades at can't actually afford a tank, much less a chain saw tank. If your enemy can only afford a red flyer wagon to move around with, then you've pretty much got the upper hand. It's the same with space based weapons. Sure if you are going up against China, they might be able to shoot your little toy out of the sky, but the U.S. is fighting some very low tech opponents.
Perhaps GP has a flawed view of U.S. foreign policy, but his point remains. Regardless of whether a war or battle or offensive is justified or morally right, once the U.S. military decides on a target then any casualties besides that target and anyone defending that target are considered collateral damage. Once again, whatever the justification of a military strike, they still wish to reduce collateral damage as much as possible. This may be due to a sense of morality in the top brass, or it could be because they realize collateral damage tarnishes America's image and actually pushes more people to the dark side. Or maybe it is a little of both . .
Either way, your arguments do not change the fact that American military policy is to reduce collateral damage, and that these weapon advances help in that regard.
Slashdot Mirror
I did some internet checking and it seems we are both wrong, but to be fair, you were more correct than I. Almost everything you said was right, except "to let loose" isn't a compound verb. It is a verb phrase. A compound verb is when you use multiple verbs separated by commas. Here's the links I read:
http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/compoundverb.htm
http://members.cox.net/lenco1/grammarpractice/verbs/vphrase.htm
Why be either? Sounds like he just looked through the guy's slashdot posts. I'd only be impressed if he linked all this information to the guy's name or something that might actually identify him.
"let loose the dogs of war" can be reworded to "to let the dogs of war loose"
Either way, both "let" and "loose" are verbs here.
I don't know how to link a source but an article called "USING STATUTES TO SET LEGISLATIVE RULES: ENTRENCHMENT, SEPARATION OF POWERS, AND THE RULES OF PROCEEDINGS CLAUSE" has this to say: "both chambers of Congress appear to have come quite firmly to believe that the Constitution grants them the prerogative to abrogate by unilateral action any statutory provision that concerns internal affairs within the purview of the rules power. Their parliamentary guides are confident on the matter, stating that it “has been settled that Congress may not by law interfere with the constitutional right of a future House to make is own rules." The article can be found here: http://www.student.virginia.edu/~jalopy/PDFs/19-4/345-410.PDF
The problem with this idea is that one congress cannot bind future congresses to any particular rules. Each congress decides how they will run things. The only steadfast requirements are the ones laid down in the constitution (like only the house can introduce spending legislation) and those that have just been around so long that there isn't any reason to change (like the various committees and chamber leadership positions).
No, the real problem is the way congressional rules are handled. Say a large spending bill is being pushed through congress. The spending bill will do all kinds of wonderful things for all kinds of people. Everyone agrees that this is a great bill, except that one annoying senator that doesn't like some random amendment that was slipped in. Maybe the amendment says that on the next census, everyone's dna will be collected. Maybe, that isn't such a good thing. Maybe, even if it were a good thing, it shouldn't be added to a giant spending bill. The senator votes NO on the bill, and now his rivals say "just look at the voting record. He is obviously against tax cuts! He is evil and wants to eat your babies!" I'm from the U.S. but I'm guessing that the same problem happens in the UK.
In most parts of the U.S. we vote for individuals. A lot of ballots have the option of straight ticket voting, but the actual votes are still for each individual. I don't want my representatives voting along party lines. Say I live in the 123rd district of Texas. I want my representatives voting along the lines of the citizens in the 123rd district of Texas, not the national party stance.
Heh . that's actually IN the link. Disregard my commend :)
The point of the joke went so far over your head all you saw was a contrail.
I saw no such thing!
(I was looking down)
*sigh* Your link + "A Christmas Story" = ??
I knew javascript was used on a lot more pages lately, but I had no idea just how much it is used until I installed noscript. Now I find myself constantly re-enabling various webpages when I need that functionality.
You answered your own question. It is 3D and had Johnny Depp. Maybe you don't care, and I don't care, but those two points are definitely the cause of "the fuss."
Like O.J.!!
Why, oh why does everyone keep telling the Chinese what to do with their country? Didn't you guys believe in freedom or something? Or does that not apply until you have troops stationed there?
Fix your own damn country first.
I believe in freedom of the people, not freedom of the government. I don't approve of China's censorship any more than I would approve of the U.S. government doing the same thing. Pointing out that we have our own problems doesn't invalidate the criticism of Chinese censorship.
True random shuffle will give you songs and orders you've already heard --- just as likely as any other song and order combination. With a decently large selection of music, the chance to randomly pick the exact same song and order combination as one you have recently heard is quite low. In other words, your randomization technique sucks.
You only pointed out one of your bad assumptions. Saying that 72% of votes made no difference at all to the outcome of the election is simply false. That 72% ensured that the other 479 seats were kept by the incumbent. Throw away that 72% of votes and the outcome of the election would be completely different! The argument that the votes given by the losing side are wasted only apply when talking about one position. When talking about a group of positions, voting to keep one position the same is just as relevant as voting for change.
TPTB?? What do the LOST producers have to do with this story? :P
Don't underestimate the value of six-sigma network impact!!
Sadly, that show has been off the air for almost 12 years . .
Unfortunately, it will probably be your local police showing up at your doorstep, enforcing your own country's laws. That law being to comply with another country's laws. . .
No, GP is talking about how Texas and Louisiana share information, for instance. The U.S. "manipulation" of Mexico and Central America is a different issue entirely.
Good call. In fact, I DIDN'T remember. I do not have an IPhone and I forgot you can't take the batteries out of them. I guess we are back to the original question. Will IPhone batteries explode if placed in a microwave long enough to fry the rest of the phone?
You are just trying to fry the insides of the phone right? So take the battery out before you put the phone in the microwave. Silly goose.
That is a good point, unless the person you are throwing your sack full of grenades at can't actually afford a tank, much less a chain saw tank. If your enemy can only afford a red flyer wagon to move around with, then you've pretty much got the upper hand. It's the same with space based weapons. Sure if you are going up against China, they might be able to shoot your little toy out of the sky, but the U.S. is fighting some very low tech opponents.
Either way, your arguments do not change the fact that American military policy is to reduce collateral damage, and that these weapon advances help in that regard.
******VIOLATION*******
PLEASE HAND IN YOUR GEEK CARD! You should have known that "RADIO SHACK" is now called only "THE SHACK"!!
Only to the marketing types. I refuse to acknowledge crappy rebranding efforts, i.e. syfy