What's particularly conservative about expressing the self-evident truth that when we mess with the environment we tend to screw it up even when our intentions are good?
Never mind how odious the concept itself is. It won't affect me anyway. I don't do TV.
To me, this is Yet Another Example of how the patent system is completely broken. They have patented modifying the behavior of a device based on the value of a software flag. This is almost as absurd as swinging sideways.
You're in a slightly different situation though. The attractive thing about your games is exactly that they're not particularly innovative, at least in terms of technology. The value is entirely in the stories, puzzles, and particular challenges, which can be enjoyed effortlessly because you don't have to learn a complex, "innovative" interface to play. (That they're also very, very playable on older machines that lack the latest and greatest hardware is a nifty bonus.)
1. Blocking state legislative elections won't put those in office out of their jobs. You can't run a state without a legislature. It's more likely that those in office would instead continue in office. Your proposal has exactly the opposite effect you imagine.
2. "...allow the Federal Government more power over state elections..." had not to do with repealing the 17th Amendment as such, but with your proposed Federal law blocking state legislative elections. If that were to be put into place it would have to be part of the amendment repealing the 17th, since it would pretty obviously be unconstitutional otherwise.
3. See 1. You spoke of blocking elections, not removing the incumbents from office.
4. Well, that was the idea. Honestly, it's as if no one has read The Federalist these days. Oh, that's right! They haven't! (If they had, they'd be getting the willies over how we elect the President too. Amazing how we've been able to subvert that system.)
Yes, but his power isn't constitutional as you said. According to that link, it derives from the procedural rules of the Texas Senate.
It's a power the VPOTUS could have. That his position as President of the Senate is largely ceremonial is strictly customary, becuase administrations generally finds something else for him to do; he has full constitutional authority to occupy the position permanently. (And he does occupy it when there's a very close vote in the Senate that's important to the administration, since the President pro tem only gets a tiebreaker vote.)
We have a similar governor-limiting system in California, where numerous public officials who sound like they should be appointed cabinet members are elected separately from the governorship. I suspect a relatively weak governor (compared to the President) isn't all that uncommon.
Include a provision in which, if a senator wasn't chosen by election day, no member of the state legislature could be reelected.
If it wasn't sufficient inducement that a state would be shooting itself in the foot by assuring it was under-represented in the Senate, I don't see how blocking state elections is going to help. I also don't think it a good idea to allow the Federal Government more power over state elections than it absolutely needs to guarantee civil liberties.
Besides, what this is essentially doing is locking the current legislators into their jobs. This is supposed to prod them how?
It's too bad that "democracy" has become such a thoughtless mantra. The disadvantages of a popularly elected Senate are so manifest that it ought to be relatively easy to repeal the 17th, but for the fact it would be "less democratic".
Because the Governor-General is no more a political office than the Crown is. The appointment is made with the "advice" of your Parliament anyway, which basically means the Crown appoints whomever its told to appoint. It's as democratic as your Prime Minister.
Besides, some people see an advantage of separating the Head of State from the Head of Government. In the US it would be refreshing to be able to have the Head of State present to solemnize some event, without having to invite the current idiot in the White House who will use the occasion to push whatever's presently on his political agenda.
Guy Fawkes was blowing up the wrong building for the purposes you have in mind here. He was trying to destroy Westminster, aka the Houses of Parliament. You'd like him more to go after various other government buildings along Whitehall.
Unfortunately, it takes more than nifty effects and appealing ideas for a film to succeed. Trivialities such as plot and characterization need to be seen to as well. In the case of Tron, they weren't. It was easy to overlook that on first viewing, and as a CS student (and working programmer, part-time) at the time it was released I fully understand the appeal from your point of view. But once the "whiz-bang" factor fades, there's very little of substance to this movie.
Which is strange, becuase I find that Google's "Safe Search" option generally results in work-safe content. Granted that it's fairly easy to turn off -- but if they're worried about children accidentally stumbling over porn it's sufficient.
Children deliberately seeking out porn is another matter. A determined adolescent will be able to access it no matter what the government tells him. (It's not just on the Web, after all.)
Every movie I've gone out to see recently has been at the Del Mar, except those to which I was taking a child. And even then I wanted to get him out to see Duma, but he unfortunately came down with a cold and I wasn't able to do it.
There is nothing interesting in the mainstream cinema. At all.
"And this little pig cries 'we, we, we' all the way home!"
Who knew that such a profound quantum mechanical truth was concealed in this simple nursery rhyme? I bet in half the universes, the pigs were captured in the market and butchered for sausage, and it's only in the others where they return home safely.
I think research programs can only benefit from commercialized space travel.
Suppose you were in the US and wanted to visit the Sahara but there was no means in place for you to get there. You'd have to travel to a coast however you could, build a ship, gather supplies for the voyage, sail across the ocean, find a good harbor, gather supplies for your trip into the desert, find yourself some camels, and then hopefully set off in the right direction.
Fortunately, you don't have to do that. You can just hop on a plane to Rabat and go for it.
The current state of affairs for space exploration is like the first scenario. If space travel were commercialized, it may well end up more like the second. Even just getting out of the bottom of Earth's gravity well could make exploration of the outer planets much more affordable. We might not even need NASA anymore. Space exploration could come within reach of many other research facilities.
We should continue exploration not only for the monetary return on investment (ROI), but rather BECAUSE IT'S THERE!
That's the idealistic response, but this is the kind of thing that will get NASA out of the space business and get people into it who know how to turn a profit on it. In the long run, this is what can make space travel widely accessible, not a government agency.
Slashdot Mirror
What's particularly conservative about expressing the self-evident truth that when we mess with the environment we tend to screw it up even when our intentions are good?
To me, this is Yet Another Example of how the patent system is completely broken. They have patented modifying the behavior of a device based on the value of a software flag. This is almost as absurd as swinging sideways.
Actually, they're more like mid to late-series Ultima, and are a lot of fun to play.
As long as we're debunking myths, that's not really a Chinese curse.
You're in a slightly different situation though. The attractive thing about your games is exactly that they're not particularly innovative, at least in terms of technology. The value is entirely in the stories, puzzles, and particular challenges, which can be enjoyed effortlessly because you don't have to learn a complex, "innovative" interface to play. (That they're also very, very playable on older machines that lack the latest and greatest hardware is a nifty bonus.)
Maybe they should mount a dowsing rod onto the guidance system...
Hey, that's good enough for me! It's hours and hours of good, clean fun!
2. "...allow the Federal Government more power over state elections..." had not to do with repealing the 17th Amendment as such, but with your proposed Federal law blocking state legislative elections. If that were to be put into place it would have to be part of the amendment repealing the 17th, since it would pretty obviously be unconstitutional otherwise.
3. See 1. You spoke of blocking elections, not removing the incumbents from office.
4. Well, that was the idea. Honestly, it's as if no one has read The Federalist these days. Oh, that's right! They haven't! (If they had, they'd be getting the willies over how we elect the President too. Amazing how we've been able to subvert that system.)
And they are not the President's governors. Good Lord, you'll have Thomas Jefferson and James Madison turning in their graves.
It's a power the VPOTUS could have. That his position as President of the Senate is largely ceremonial is strictly customary, becuase administrations generally finds something else for him to do; he has full constitutional authority to occupy the position permanently. (And he does occupy it when there's a very close vote in the Senate that's important to the administration, since the President pro tem only gets a tiebreaker vote.)
We have a similar governor-limiting system in California, where numerous public officials who sound like they should be appointed cabinet members are elected separately from the governorship. I suspect a relatively weak governor (compared to the President) isn't all that uncommon.
Are they also going to try to find out what happens when you fling a frozen chicken at the windshield?
If it wasn't sufficient inducement that a state would be shooting itself in the foot by assuring it was under-represented in the Senate, I don't see how blocking state elections is going to help. I also don't think it a good idea to allow the Federal Government more power over state elections than it absolutely needs to guarantee civil liberties.
Besides, what this is essentially doing is locking the current legislators into their jobs. This is supposed to prod them how?
It's too bad that "democracy" has become such a thoughtless mantra. The disadvantages of a popularly elected Senate are so manifest that it ought to be relatively easy to repeal the 17th, but for the fact it would be "less democratic".
Hmm. I don't see it. Looks analogous to the Pres/VP of the US to me.
Besides, some people see an advantage of separating the Head of State from the Head of Government. In the US it would be refreshing to be able to have the Head of State present to solemnize some event, without having to invite the current idiot in the White House who will use the occasion to push whatever's presently on his political agenda.
Guy Fawkes was blowing up the wrong building for the purposes you have in mind here. He was trying to destroy Westminster, aka the Houses of Parliament. You'd like him more to go after various other government buildings along Whitehall.
Unfortunately, it takes more than nifty effects and appealing ideas for a film to succeed. Trivialities such as plot and characterization need to be seen to as well. In the case of Tron, they weren't. It was easy to overlook that on first viewing, and as a CS student (and working programmer, part-time) at the time it was released I fully understand the appeal from your point of view. But once the "whiz-bang" factor fades, there's very little of substance to this movie.
Children deliberately seeking out porn is another matter. A determined adolescent will be able to access it no matter what the government tells him. (It's not just on the Web, after all.)
There is nothing interesting in the mainstream cinema. At all.
I'd rather get half the sausage all the time, I think.
Why shouldn't I observe them? I love sausage.
Who knew that such a profound quantum mechanical truth was concealed in this simple nursery rhyme? I bet in half the universes, the pigs were captured in the market and butchered for sausage, and it's only in the others where they return home safely.
It's not a review, it's a tutorial, so it's necessary to be brutally honest -- but you have to make it sound nifty so as not to scare readers away.
Suppose you were in the US and wanted to visit the Sahara but there was no means in place for you to get there. You'd have to travel to a coast however you could, build a ship, gather supplies for the voyage, sail across the ocean, find a good harbor, gather supplies for your trip into the desert, find yourself some camels, and then hopefully set off in the right direction.
Fortunately, you don't have to do that. You can just hop on a plane to Rabat and go for it.
The current state of affairs for space exploration is like the first scenario. If space travel were commercialized, it may well end up more like the second. Even just getting out of the bottom of Earth's gravity well could make exploration of the outer planets much more affordable. We might not even need NASA anymore. Space exploration could come within reach of many other research facilities.
That's the idealistic response, but this is the kind of thing that will get NASA out of the space business and get people into it who know how to turn a profit on it. In the long run, this is what can make space travel widely accessible, not a government agency.
Shouldn't that be "superdominos"?