Anyway, two-thirds of the states' (34 out of 50) must call for a Constitutional Convention to propose the amendment.
Afterwards, the proposed amendment needs to be approved by three-fourths of the states' (38 out of 50) legislature or convention.
this still represents a majority.
The Congress is not involved in that scenario at all, only State legislatures.
True, but that actually gives the people more of a voice which is why it has never been used. Think of it as a safety device that states can use if they feel like they have a rogue congress. In order for the a particular state legislature to approve an amendment, the majority of the delegates who represent different parts of the state must approve. Also the same result must come from at least 37 other states.
Remember the constitution is amended by the will of the people, not the congress. If the second option is ever used, the will of the people is still being represented.
The difficulty of passing an amendment is the only reason there are so few amendments to the US constitution. Remember when the Republicans tried and failed to propose an amendment to ban flag burning?
Indeed, and don't even get me started on those countries - like some in North America - that don't even require 51% of people's vote to amend their constitution, effectively allowing the minority to oppress the majority!
At least it's not the US because it needs at least 66% of both houses to even PROPOSE an admendment.
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798])
Actually the polling done in the article is a representative democracy. It's just done to the extreme.
Remember the poll only determines the outcome of a single representative, who's job is to represent the views of his constituency.
Hopefully they will find something in the samples they brought back that indicates life or something equally as great (perhaps some new elements for the periodic table?).
Hopefully we won't be reduced to Sterno addicts and crying babies!
For the younger folks, that was a (bad) reference to the "Andromeda Strain".
An OEM is still an OEM regardless of their size. They take their marching orders from their customer. Quanta (like ASUS) does act as an ODM and sell laptops that are rebranded. I suspect most of those wound up being the lower cost HP models and the bulk of Acer.
Acer did reportedly drop Quanta in favor of Compal (the other large Taiwanese OEM/ODM) for their Aspire One line in Oct 2008. This seems to indicate that cost is the main influence Quanta has with its partners. This would also highlight the desire for a standardize power supply, since it would allow for lower priced hardware.
Also the press release dropped a lot of well known computer company names but did not make a distinction between those that purchased ODM machines and those who purchased component assemblies like LCD screens.
The lower end laptops do have very similar traits and this would definitely make it easier to standardize on a power supply for the growing netbook market. However, I still don't see any evidence that this would quickly go up to the higher end models which tend to be designed inhouse by the brands themselves and usually have unique power / form factor requirements.
This is why I cautioned about getting too excited...
According to Taiwanese industry news site Digitimes these kinds of solutions may soon be superseded. It now appears that some of the major players in laptops are getting together to work on a standardized laptop power supply design. This includes the big branded players ASUS and Acer as well as the OEM manufacturers like Quanta and Compal, which are responsible for a lot of the non-brand name laptops available on the market.
Basically it's just four Taiwanese OEM manufacturers (Yes ASUS is just as much an OEM as a brand name) trying to lessen the cost of manufacture by making the laptop power supply a commodity item. While this would be a good thing for all involved, I wouldn't start rejoicing until Foxconn expresses an interest and of course Dell, Apple, Lenovo, etc.
The IBM S/360 was a mainframe. The Apple ][ was a personal computer.
I would assume that all mainframes had ports, otherwise how would you hook up the peripherals?
Anyway let's get some facts straight:
The first "Personal Computer" meaning a computer that was sold and designed to be used by a single person was the IBM 601 Auto-Point Computer it was billed as a Personal Automatic Computer (PAC) and was announced in 1957.
The first "Personal Computer" aimed at the hobbyist (soon to be renamed home) market and sold already assembled was the Apple I in 1976.
The first All-In-One computer Personal Computer aimed at the home market was the Commodore PET introduced in 1977.
The first personal computer aimed at the home market that featured internal expansion cards was the Apple ][ introduced in 1977. The expansion bus was open and created the first consumer level third-party expansion market due to the successful sales of the Apple ][.
Mostly what IBM did for the PC was legitimize it, saying 'this is a serious tool which can be used for business'.
The Apple ][ was already legitimized by its sales and the great word processor for its time (Wordstar and Magic Windows), and the all-time killer application called VisiCalc.
IBM came late to the party, and when it introduced the IBM PC in 1981. IBM instead used its established business in mainframes to sell it's PC to medium size businesses. This is when the adage "No one gets fired for buying an IBM" really took off. Because of its price, the IBM PC didn't really take off in the home computing market. However IBM didn't protect its design and an IBM PC Compatible market was soon created. The clones flooded the market with cheap PCs. This allowed home users to buy a cheap computer and use the same software at home that they use at work (a marketing whisper campaign that promoted software piracy as a means to sell computers *wink wink*).
IBM could never get its act together. They did everything they could to shoot themselves in the foot.
First they decided to fight the clones over the use of the ROM BASIC (called BASIC A). Microsoft came out with GWBASIC that didn't need the ROMs. I believe this is where the term "IBM PC compatible" became forever replaced with "MS-DOS Compatible".
Then came the IBM PCjr which was introduced in 1984. IBM desperate to keep its business oriented IBM PC out of the "low end" value priced market, introduced one of the biggest flop in PC history - the IBM PCjr. Almost everything on it was purposely crippled or ill designed to give you an incentive to buy the more expensive IBM PC. Too bad IBM completely disregarded all the clones that were on the market. Why pay for a PCjr when you can get a PC Clone for around the same price (or cheaper).
The final straw was when IBM in 1987 decided that they couldn't beat the clones and instead introduced the MCA bus with the idea that they could make money by licensing the bus. Then they got greedy and decided to make the license fee too expensive in order to make their computers (the infamous PS/2 line) more competitive. The clone industry countered with the EISA bus, which eventually was replaced by the PCI bus.
In the end, Microsoft was what made the PC Computer what it is today - not IBM.
I agree, and as far as I know it has already been done. I think everybody is waiting for SCOTUS' ruling on "Perry v. Schwarzenegger" (the Prop 8 lawsuit).
I think it would be cool to tinker with. I could possible justify the purchase since I could use the modified laptop in direct sunlight when I'm doing magnetometer calibrations.
But $275 places it out of my DIY price range and $575 total price places it in the same price range of the cadillac of tablet devices and I would still need to make a case (and add touch screen input).
Well actually it agrees with my experience. I've worked with the FCC to resolve some interference disputes (Malfunctioning pager transmitters use to be a huge problem in my area).
They do prioritize based on services being interfered with.
I find it hard to justify money being spent to find out why an individual's part 15 device which operates in an ISM band is being interfered with.
If a whole neighborhood was affected then that's a different story because that means that the spurious interference is possibly strong enough to warrant an investigation. However if you're the only one getting interfered then there is insufficient evidence that harmful interference is taking place.
Now if an individual went through the trouble of finding the source of the interference, then the FCC will be glad to look into it. However the parent post inferred that calling the FCC would alleviate the need to find the source of the interference.
If they don't want to get married, but think unmarried gay couples shouldn't get benefits they don't have, the solution is obvious: lobby for gay marriage.
A more practical solution would be for an employee to sue Google for discrimination based on sexual preferences.
Also you assumed that all gays want to get married. Despite their intention to get married they get the benefit of providing insurance to their partner. Are straight couples who have no intention of getting married afforded this benefit?
Your argument looks good except for the fact that the two similar looking issues are actually to very different things.
So, you are upset google is compensating gays in long term relationships for a tax code that is discriminatory against gays and you wish to eliminate unfair wages based on sexual orientation.
Yes, because Google is actively defying fair labor laws in order to push their agenda. Will Google rescind this liberal salary policy when the "Working Families Tax Relief Act" is not reauthorized and the marriage penalty returns (or actually returns to its pre-2003 level since the marriage penalty didn't fully disappear)?
So then by implication I can assume you are also wishing to legalize gay marriage so that we can eliminate the federal tax code discrimination against long term gay relationships in order to stamp out google's wage discrimination which is based on countering the federal tax code discrimination against gays?
Well actually I'm for gay marriage.
However your argument is invalid because I could be for the enforcement of fair labor laws and against the legalization of gay marriage. They are two different topics. A bigot could take the position that he is not only against gay marriage but he is sickened by the thought that Google is paying them extra to be gay.
So I conclude that the following statement:
Hint: if you're against one form of sexual discrimination, then you MUST be against another form of sexual discrimination in order to maintain a consistent logical argument.
is invalid since you mixed up the topic of fair labor practices with the more personal topic of gay marriage. Nice try though.
Actually I'm for gay marriage. Why should we heterosexuals keep all the fun of being married to ourselves?
For most of my marriage I've been penalized by the tax code. In fact the marriage penalty returns in 2011 unless congress renews the "Working Families Tax Relief Act".
Marriage has more to do with estate than with taxes. In the case of death, the surviving spouse is offered protections that are not available to a non-married couple. Sure a will can offer some protections, but what about when that will is contested? I've heard horror stories where a vindictive family will pretty much leave the surviving gay partner "out in the cold".
I think Google's actions amount to nothing more than discrimination based on sexual orientation and they may very well rightfully find themselves in court.
I wouldn't count on the FCC to solve your problems. Title 47 CFR Part 15.19.3 (labeling requirements) states:
This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) This device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.
Good for you. I wish I can say the same. T-Mobile penalizes me by being an existing customer and charges me an extra $100. Not to mention, Google won't sell it to me since I chose to have my wife's and daughter's phone on my plan.
If that wasn't bad enough, I've heard horror stories surrounding the Nexus One and how Google mishandled it or just plain refused to answer any more support questions on some customer's issue over 3G connectivity. Just Google it...
The Nexus One doesn't exactly scream good consumer experience, and by the looks of it Google has its own connectivity issues to work out.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry for not seeing your comment earlier.
Anyway, two-thirds of the states' (34 out of 50) must call for a Constitutional Convention to propose the amendment.
Afterwards, the proposed amendment needs to be approved by three-fourths of the states' (38 out of 50) legislature or convention.
this still represents a majority.
True, but that actually gives the people more of a voice which is why it has never been used. Think of it as a safety device that states can use if they feel like they have a rogue congress. In order for the a particular state legislature to approve an amendment, the majority of the delegates who represent different parts of the state must approve. Also the same result must come from at least 37 other states.
Remember the constitution is amended by the will of the people, not the congress. If the second option is ever used, the will of the people is still being represented.
The difficulty of passing an amendment is the only reason there are so few amendments to the US constitution. Remember when the Republicans tried and failed to propose an amendment to ban flag burning?
At least it's not the US because it needs at least 66% of both houses to even PROPOSE an admendment.
From http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html:
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798])
Actually the polling done in the article is a representative democracy. It's just done to the extreme. Remember the poll only determines the outcome of a single representative, who's job is to represent the views of his constituency.
I agree. I just think there's a long road ahead. More political than technical, but still..
Hopefully we won't be reduced to Sterno addicts and crying babies!
For the younger folks, that was a (bad) reference to the "Andromeda Strain".
An OEM is still an OEM regardless of their size. They take their marching orders from their customer. Quanta (like ASUS) does act as an ODM and sell laptops that are rebranded. I suspect most of those wound up being the lower cost HP models and the bulk of Acer.
Acer did reportedly drop Quanta in favor of Compal (the other large Taiwanese OEM/ODM) for their Aspire One line in Oct 2008. This seems to indicate that cost is the main influence Quanta has with its partners. This would also highlight the desire for a standardize power supply, since it would allow for lower priced hardware.
Also the press release dropped a lot of well known computer company names but did not make a distinction between those that purchased ODM machines and those who purchased component assemblies like LCD screens.
The lower end laptops do have very similar traits and this would definitely make it easier to standardize on a power supply for the growing netbook market. However, I still don't see any evidence that this would quickly go up to the higher end models which tend to be designed inhouse by the brands themselves and usually have unique power / form factor requirements.
This is why I cautioned about getting too excited...
Here's a huge grain of salt:
Basically it's just four Taiwanese OEM manufacturers (Yes ASUS is just as much an OEM as a brand name) trying to lessen the cost of manufacture by making the laptop power supply a commodity item. While this would be a good thing for all involved, I wouldn't start rejoicing until Foxconn expresses an interest and of course Dell, Apple, Lenovo, etc.
Wow this thread assumes that the war is being directly managed by politicians... oh wait... it is.
You lost me. Could you expound on your comment?
The IBM S/360 was a mainframe. The Apple ][ was a personal computer.
I would assume that all mainframes had ports, otherwise how would you hook up the peripherals?
Anyway let's get some facts straight:
The first "Personal Computer" meaning a computer that was sold and designed to be used by a single person was the IBM 601 Auto-Point Computer it was billed as a Personal Automatic Computer (PAC) and was announced in 1957.
The first "Personal Computer" aimed at the hobbyist (soon to be renamed home) market and sold already assembled was the Apple I in 1976.
The first All-In-One computer Personal Computer aimed at the home market was the Commodore PET introduced in 1977.
The first personal computer aimed at the home market that featured internal expansion cards was the Apple ][ introduced in 1977. The expansion bus was open and created the first consumer level third-party expansion market due to the successful sales of the Apple ][.
The Apple ][ was already legitimized by its sales and the great word processor for its time (Wordstar and Magic Windows), and the all-time killer application called VisiCalc.
IBM came late to the party, and when it introduced the IBM PC in 1981. IBM instead used its established business in mainframes to sell it's PC to medium size businesses. This is when the adage "No one gets fired for buying an IBM" really took off. Because of its price, the IBM PC didn't really take off in the home computing market. However IBM didn't protect its design and an IBM PC Compatible market was soon created. The clones flooded the market with cheap PCs. This allowed home users to buy a cheap computer and use the same software at home that they use at work (a marketing whisper campaign that promoted software piracy as a means to sell computers *wink wink*).
IBM could never get its act together. They did everything they could to shoot themselves in the foot.
First they decided to fight the clones over the use of the ROM BASIC (called BASIC A). Microsoft came out with GWBASIC that didn't need the ROMs. I believe this is where the term "IBM PC compatible" became forever replaced with "MS-DOS Compatible".
Then came the IBM PCjr which was introduced in 1984. IBM desperate to keep its business oriented IBM PC out of the "low end" value priced market, introduced one of the biggest flop in PC history - the IBM PCjr. Almost everything on it was purposely crippled or ill designed to give you an incentive to buy the more expensive IBM PC. Too bad IBM completely disregarded all the clones that were on the market. Why pay for a PCjr when you can get a PC Clone for around the same price (or cheaper).
The final straw was when IBM in 1987 decided that they couldn't beat the clones and instead introduced the MCA bus with the idea that they could make money by licensing the bus. Then they got greedy and decided to make the license fee too expensive in order to make their computers (the infamous PS/2 line) more competitive. The clone industry countered with the EISA bus, which eventually was replaced by the PCI bus.
In the end, Microsoft was what made the PC Computer what it is today - not IBM.
I really need to switch to decaf...
I agree, and as far as I know it has already been done. I think everybody is waiting for SCOTUS' ruling on "Perry v. Schwarzenegger" (the Prop 8 lawsuit).
Probably not these days. I guess there are no more true christians.
I am sorry that you have confuse "Christians" with "dumb asses that attack human rights in the name of christianity".
There is a difference.
The theory behind the lawsuit is that the greedy lawyer that initiated it gets some press and some money to boot!
Cool. Maybe you could post a review when you receive it. I'm interested and I'm sure others are too.
I'm thinking around 1024 x 600 since that is the resolution of the two netbook models mentioned.
Of course it could be lower....
I think it would be cool to tinker with. I could possible justify the purchase since I could use the modified laptop in direct sunlight when I'm doing magnetometer calibrations.
But $275 places it out of my DIY price range and $575 total price places it in the same price range of the cadillac of tablet devices and I would still need to make a case (and add touch screen input).
Well actually it agrees with my experience. I've worked with the FCC to resolve some interference disputes (Malfunctioning pager transmitters use to be a huge problem in my area).
They do prioritize based on services being interfered with.
I find it hard to justify money being spent to find out why an individual's part 15 device which operates in an ISM band is being interfered with.
If a whole neighborhood was affected then that's a different story because that means that the spurious interference is possibly strong enough to warrant an investigation. However if you're the only one getting interfered then there is insufficient evidence that harmful interference is taking place.
Now if an individual went through the trouble of finding the source of the interference, then the FCC will be glad to look into it. However the parent post inferred that calling the FCC would alleviate the need to find the source of the interference.
A more practical solution would be for an employee to sue Google for discrimination based on sexual preferences.
Also you assumed that all gays want to get married. Despite their intention to get married they get the benefit of providing insurance to their partner. Are straight couples who have no intention of getting married afforded this benefit?
Your argument looks good except for the fact that the two similar looking issues are actually to very different things.
Yes, because Google is actively defying fair labor laws in order to push their agenda. Will Google rescind this liberal salary policy when the "Working Families Tax Relief Act" is not reauthorized and the marriage penalty returns (or actually returns to its pre-2003 level since the marriage penalty didn't fully disappear)?
Well actually I'm for gay marriage.
However your argument is invalid because I could be for the enforcement of fair labor laws and against the legalization of gay marriage. They are two different topics. A bigot could take the position that he is not only against gay marriage but he is sickened by the thought that Google is paying them extra to be gay.
So I conclude that the following statement:
is invalid since you mixed up the topic of fair labor practices with the more personal topic of gay marriage. Nice try though.
Actually I'm for gay marriage. Why should we heterosexuals keep all the fun of being married to ourselves?
For most of my marriage I've been penalized by the tax code. In fact the marriage penalty returns in 2011 unless congress renews the "Working Families Tax Relief Act".
Marriage has more to do with estate than with taxes. In the case of death, the surviving spouse is offered protections that are not available to a non-married couple. Sure a will can offer some protections, but what about when that will is contested? I've heard horror stories where a vindictive family will pretty much leave the surviving gay partner "out in the cold".
I think Google's actions amount to nothing more than discrimination based on sexual orientation and they may very well rightfully find themselves in court.
When it interferes with a licensed service or a non-part 15 device.
I wouldn't count on the FCC to solve your problems. Title 47 CFR Part 15 .19.3 (labeling requirements) states:
This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) This device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.
Good for you. I wish I can say the same. T-Mobile penalizes me by being an existing customer and charges me an extra $100. Not to mention, Google won't sell it to me since I chose to have my wife's and daughter's phone on my plan.
If that wasn't bad enough, I've heard horror stories surrounding the Nexus One and how Google mishandled it or just plain refused to answer any more support questions on some customer's issue over 3G connectivity. Just Google it...
The Nexus One doesn't exactly scream good consumer experience, and by the looks of it Google has its own connectivity issues to work out.
So true.
They demonstrated the marketability of a gimmick. Once they lose exclusivity of that gimmick, they have nothing else to compete on except for price.