Ahh but see, I said bad back then, and still bad now.
But the headline is misleading anyway; this comment from the wired article sums things up nicely:
Read the doc: it is a purely procedural document asking the court for more time. It has NOTHING to do with the substance of the government's position or whether the Obama admin takes the same position as the Bush admin. The title of the article and the inference the article makes is HIGHLY misleading. It may be literally true the new admin has taken the same position but it plays fast-and-loose with the actual facts to reach the conclusion that this article implies.
I dunno... perhaps investigating the past administration will be easier with warrantless wiretapping in place?
The fun part will be watching various conservatives do strange contortions as they try to say that, what was a necessity under the Bush administration, is now a bad thing under an Obama administration.
That's right, if we have learned one thing from the past administration, we know that today it is cookies from youtube, but tomorrow it is warrantless wiretaps and waterboarding (not to be confused with snowboarding).
So which of the facts in the portions of the Wikipedia article I posted are incorrect? I am more than happy to hear of facts to the contrary.
If you think that firing appointed officials on a whim is fine, by all means that is your right. Though I would put forth that perhaps an entire administration filled with yes men might not be the most productive way to govern.
The dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy is a United States political scandal initiated by the unprecedented[1] midterm dismissal of seven United States Attorneys on December 7, 2006 by the George W. Bush administration's Department of Justice.
(snip)
The dismissed U.S. Attorneys had all been appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the Senate, more than four years earlier.
Aside from wanting replacements more in sync with a specific agenda, why was this done? Apparently even the administration couldn't say exactly why:
Members of Congress investigating the dismissals have found that sworn testimony from Department of Justice officials appears to contradict internal Department memoranda and e-mail, and that possibly Congress was deliberately misled.
So you seriously believe that the fact the government was handing out coupons to anyone had zero impact on how these units were priced? Amazing how every single price I have seen when I looked 6 months ago was $10-$25 more than the government coupon.
I would bet money that in six months, the converter boxes will be cheaper. Why sell your box for $25 when you can tack on an extra $25 and expect people to use a coupon?
Once people get used to this, what keeps naughty people from sending out legitimate looking upgrade disks that scramble your player or install software that lets them use your network connected player as a spam server? Urgh, basically virus laden spam for snail mail.
How many animals have gone extinct because of rabbits or cane toads (purely because of them, and not because of our direct actions)? And I would be amazed if any organism we could find on earth is even a tenth as suited to living on Mars as rabbits and toads are to pretty much any place on earth, much less an organism capable of reproducing and obliterating any Martian native species.
Don't get me wrong; people have severely underestimated the impact imported organisms will have on a variety of environments. And I am glad we are being careful (heck we are having this conversation because we have learned from past mistakes). But unless we are planning right now to never set foot on Mars we can pretty much assume contamination will take place; I'm just suggesting that the harsh environment will almost certainly limit the contamination anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
At least I don't do the Marathon shuffle around blind corners in the hallway anymore.
Though if your primary drive is spitting out bad data, it doesn't matter what backup media you are using.
By forcing people to switch now, it will force people to start purchasing.
Though delaying it until people theoretically have tax refunds and/or any stimulus to spend seems like a good thing.
...marring the children's rectals...
That is quite a freudian slip there buddy.
Recitals; yeah that would be the word you are looking for.
They should make the RIAA host copies of the proceedings that people can get as torrents.
Probably; certainly someone out there would trade a sheep for those flashy hubcaps.
Ahh but see, I said bad back then, and still bad now.
But the headline is misleading anyway; this comment from the wired article sums things up nicely:
I dunno... perhaps investigating the past administration will be easier with warrantless wiretapping in place?
The fun part will be watching various conservatives do strange contortions as they try to say that, what was a necessity under the Bush administration, is now a bad thing under an Obama administration.
Finally, we may have resolved the Fermi Paradox.
That's right, if we have learned one thing from the past administration, we know that today it is cookies from youtube, but tomorrow it is warrantless wiretaps and waterboarding (not to be confused with snowboarding).
Folks still need vent about the election and politics in general; we may as well get it over with now.
This is why Animal Farm should be required reading for everyone.
So which of the facts in the portions of the Wikipedia article I posted are incorrect? I am more than happy to hear of facts to the contrary.
If you think that firing appointed officials on a whim is fine, by all means that is your right. Though I would put forth that perhaps an entire administration filled with yes men might not be the most productive way to govern.
From wikipedia, the font of all knowledge:
The dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy is a United States political scandal initiated by the unprecedented[1] midterm dismissal of seven United States Attorneys on December 7, 2006 by the George W. Bush administration's Department of Justice.
(snip)
The dismissed U.S. Attorneys had all been appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the Senate, more than four years earlier.
Aside from wanting replacements more in sync with a specific agenda, why was this done? Apparently even the administration couldn't say exactly why:
Members of Congress investigating the dismissals have found that sworn testimony from Department of Justice officials appears to contradict internal Department memoranda and e-mail, and that possibly Congress was deliberately misled.
Lastly, trying to move the units to different locations or reorienting their antennas...
For example, getting a long antenna cable so you can locate the AP's antenna right next to your machine(s) should work great.
How about, "Ammo" ?
Then why not drop the case and focus more fully on your 'core product business'
At this point he pretty much is.
So you seriously believe that the fact the government was handing out coupons to anyone had zero impact on how these units were priced? Amazing how every single price I have seen when I looked 6 months ago was $10-$25 more than the government coupon.
So people need to just remember to loot a new TV or converter box. Problem solved!
I would bet money that in six months, the converter boxes will be cheaper. Why sell your box for $25 when you can tack on an extra $25 and expect people to use a coupon?
One of the local tv stations is going to make the switch one week early, so no matter what the govt says at this point is probably irrelevant anyway.
Once people get used to this, what keeps naughty people from sending out legitimate looking upgrade disks that scramble your player or install software that lets them use your network connected player as a spam server? Urgh, basically virus laden spam for snail mail.
How many animals have gone extinct because of rabbits or cane toads (purely because of them, and not because of our direct actions)? And I would be amazed if any organism we could find on earth is even a tenth as suited to living on Mars as rabbits and toads are to pretty much any place on earth, much less an organism capable of reproducing and obliterating any Martian native species.
Don't get me wrong; people have severely underestimated the impact imported organisms will have on a variety of environments. And I am glad we are being careful (heck we are having this conversation because we have learned from past mistakes). But unless we are planning right now to never set foot on Mars we can pretty much assume contamination will take place; I'm just suggesting that the harsh environment will almost certainly limit the contamination anyway.
Considering they had 165 million years to develop a space program and get off this rock I'd say it is totally their fault.
This is why I never fly or sail beyond my currently visible horizon; that way I never fall off the edge of the world.