There is no sort of regulation of what is said.... There's no "actual speech" delivered in a filibuster--they're not debating the bill Exactly where is the speaker in all this then? Here in the UK the speaker puts a stop to all that sort of rubbish and presides over the house, so the debate is at least moderately sensible.
I know that you guys have a speaker, I vaguely remember hearing about her on the News; Nancy something I believe. Her job description must be vastly different to ours.
The minority party lets it leak (subtly or blatantly) that they intend to filibuster a certain bill, which causes the majority to revise the bill, pull it from a vote, or engage in some wild acrobatics to run it through anyway. This is because the majority party can't govern if they can't win, and if they can't get more than a handful of Republicans to vote for cloture, they can't defeat the filibuster. I sort of understand that, but I don't see why a fillibuster should go to a vote. If a party wants to fillibuster a bill why not make them work for it by making actual speeches and actually fillibustering a bill; that way there's always the possibility that your opponents will run out of things to say (I assume that the Speaker keeps some sort of order and prevents people from continuing to repeating the same points over and over).
I'm not from the US, how do you "threaten a filibuster"? Surely you either carry on talking until a bill runs out of time, or not? I'm from the UK; if the government (usually the majority party) wants a bill to go through, they just give it more parliamentary time. Typically only private members bills get fillibustered here, and there have been some legendary speakers and speeches to thank for it.
Could this article be any less specific? It could try: "Nintendo sues someone about something; maybe."
Seriously, I think that they were talking about ROMs, not just the literal titles of the games. Nintendo couldn't possibly be that dumb, could it? Unless, of course the site was libellous, or perhaps was some sort of erotica fanfic site. I can't really think of any other reasons that Nintendo would sue over the "titles" of the game.
Of course, that makes this a total non-story, why would Nintendo not sue sites illegally selling it's ROMs? Especially now the public can even buy old games via the Wii Virtual Console.
How do people this dumb get appointed to such high office? The only people genuinely competent enough to hold high (political) office of any kind, probably don't want it. I know that sometimes I like to think that I could somehow be Prime Minister one day, aside from our all to numerous politicians, I can think of few people less qualified but the people I know who would make good governors I sincerely doubt that any of them aspire to it.
Look at his posting history; he just has really bad karma so his posts start at -1. He just hasn't been modded up. IMO there are many other posts in this thread more deserving of mod points than the GP, so it's not surprising either that he's been left on -1 either.
Note to Mods:
This is totally off-topic so feel free to mod me down, preferably after you've modded the aforementioned good posts posts up though.
exactly how many democracies were there in the year 1847?
exactly. and there are only two ways to end a monarchy:
1) forcible overthrow
2) resignation of the monarch
since the second option is very unlikely... Whilst there was no universal suffrage*, we have had representation in parliament since 1265. So at least one. Indeed we founded many of modern democracies bacic principles pre 18th Century. Admittedly we haven't yet removed our monarchy, but no one should seriously doubt Britain's claim to be a representative democracy now.
*only land owners were allowed to vote, so as Rowan Atkinson put it in Blackadder: "take Manchester for instance. Population: 60,000. Electoral roll: 3"
The way I see it, and from what I've seen through history, violent revolution is inevitable. Really? You the last time my country had a real violent revolution was in 1066 when we were invaded by the Normans (if that counts as a revolution), since then governments have come and gone, political parties have been founded and disbanded. Our system of government has changed from an absolute monarchy to a parliamentary democracy, we gained an empire and then lost it.
We even tried to have a revolution, but it was more of a civil war, and despite the king getting his head cut off, we decided that a monarchy was preferable to a republic and crowned his son king after the intervening military dictator died. We call our revolution bloodless. I think near on a thousand years without a violent revolution, but instead a series of evolutions, sometimes bloody, at others not proves that it's not "inevitable".
Err. You seem to be mixing the Scotish and the Welsh, it's the Welsh that are well known for their sheep, and poking fun at them for it is a pastime strictly reserved for us English. The reason, as you so aptly demonstrated, is because you guys can't get it right.
My info comes from a Brit. You're telling me that if I go to Scotland I won't find some guy wearing a sheep for a sweater? I'm thoroughly disappointed.
Nope, it's well known that Scotland is full of men in skirts, no sheep at all...
Hell, you can't even insult the french properly (c.f. "freedom fries" debacle).
Most commonly we just call them cowards, and I invite you to challenge the veracity of *that*.
Just as with the Scots and Welsh, insulting the French is also a right reserved for the English; only once you've fought a hundred years war with a country (which was actually closer to 120 years) can you truly claim to have the right to insult it's inhabitance, no one likes the alternative.
Other countries that the English have reserved the right to insult include, but are not limited to Germany, Argentina, Australia and most other commonwealth countries, and the USA. Application for licences are considered on a case by case basis. For example the USA has been granted a licence to insult Canada as we don't really use it, OTOH you should cease and desist from insulting Australia, as your best try resulted in a particularly bad Simpsons episode.
The Borg... are {nothing] like the Daleks. sure they are, both have a their own catchphrases. Either 2exterminate" or "resistance is futile etc." respectively.;p
Actually, it's the self same Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Stephen Sedley (to give him his full title) who is proposing this, however I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest that you were simply pointing out the irony of him being the president of a Human Rights organisation, albeit one that I've never heard of. Instead of them, I suggest joining Liberty who have already issued a press release speaking out against this idea.
In Scotland, DNA is only kept on record if you are convicted.
It's easier for the Scots though, because if they want to collect it from you again they can get it from the sheep in your backyard.
Err. You seem to be mixing the Scotish and the Welsh, it's the Welsh that are well known for their sheep, and poking fun at them for it is a pastime strictly reserved for us English. The reason, as you so aptly demonstrated, is because you guys can't get it right. Hell, you can't even insult the french properly (c.f. "freedom fries" debacle).
Maybe they should deal with REALITY, which is that 'ethnic minorities' ARE more likely to be criminal, parasitic wastrels, than the indigenous populations, Which particular set of "indigenous populations" would that be, Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, Vikings, Hugenots or some other? Unless you mean the original Britons, of whom the only genetic remnants left are in the extreme west of Wales and Cornwall.
F
The government (in the USA anyway) has at LEAST the following: Your full name, birth record, race, eye color, hair color, parents names and IDs, your social security number, address, drivers license number, license plate, vehicle VIN number, vehicle registration number, insurance information, bank account numbers, credit account history, mortgage information, phone number (if you have ever included it on a form or called them from home, but they can get it on request anyway if you haven't), tax history, employer name(s), payroll information, fingerprints (from birth, typically elementary school age in most states, and adulthood if you've ever been to a police station or filed them voluntarily), your dental records and medical records (by request of a judge or coroner), military ID and rank (if any), and the list goes on. Fingerprints are not kept by the UK government unless you've ever been suspected of a crime, and taken down to the local cop shop (I live in the UK, one reason I'm boycotting travel to the USA is because they want my prints; my own government doesn't even have them, why should I give it to a foreign one). Well that was true until this year anyway now they also take them if you want a new passport (aledgely to harmonise biometrics with other countries; in reality the only country demanding this is the USA, I can still travel to any other EU country without even getting a passport).
Judging by last week's UK 'Protecting our children' story, loosely-defined famous people won't have to submit their DNA, to protect their privacy. So you're saying in order to protect my privacy I should audition for the next reality TV show...??
Seriously, I'm a Christian (and fan of everything scientific and technological), and I'm asking myself that same question. Why is this on Slashdot? I'm not asking this because I want the story removed or anything, I'm actually indifferent. But I find it funny that this site has more debates on religion then I see anywhere else on the web. What's the deal, why all the interest in all things religious? Actually, it's not religious discussion on/. but discussion about Christianity, and usually the very specific anti-science American right wing Christianity at that (I'm British hindu, I've never seen a debate about my religion here). And that is why there is so much debate here; we're a scientifically minded site, and when the anti-science version of religion tries to influence the world's most powerful government, there's cause for debate.
On a side note, why would a religion restrict the distribution of their "gospel"? Christianity does not stop people from reproducing pieces of the Bible. Just as long as you are accurate, and properly reference the citation with book, verse, and version (ex. John 3:16 NIV). Because IMO Scientology is not a religion, it's closer to a pyramid scheme than anything else.
Why do I think this? Because as you say, they charge for access to their religious texts. To me, this isn't a very religious thing to do. Indeed, some Scientologists have realised this, and set up an unofficial version.
It might be something to do with this.
Scientologists issued a DCMA takedown notice against/. after part of OT III was posted on here by a random user.
Thanks for clearing that up, now I think I'll understand a whole lot of American humour better. Now I have to go and learn what's so funny about the other 48 states...;p
Wait. You guys call your wives\spouses\other halves etc. mates? Being in the UK I'd never heard that synonym before, it's not one we use. Thanks for the clarification.
I have no idea what he said wrong. Why do you Americans always make fun of Utah and\or New Jersey anyway??? Can someone explain it please. It's not like they're Scottish, Welsh or French, or Irish or German or Australian either...
Just to clarify further, I'm not the guy\girl you replied to; that's just how I read his post. But I genuinely think he's disagreeing with the way they try to put their message across rather than the thrust of the message itself (I know I do, but then I dislike all selfrighteous moralizers on principle). I could of course be totally wrong.
That depends on who your host is. As long as you're not breaking the law, or (with execptions) using them to ge around local laws Nearly Free Speech will host anyone, and only actually take sites down if asked by law enforcement.
From the abuse page of their site:
A NearlyFreeSpeech.NET member site has content that is illegal in the United States.
If you are aware of criminal activity, your first step should always be to contact the appropriate law enforcement agency. Only the police can enforce the law.
If you are a law enforcement official working on a criminal investigation and you need our assistance, please contact abuse@NearlyFreeSpeech.NET. We scrupulously follow all US laws.
So that we can comply with our Privacy Policy, we will need a viable subpoena. You can contact us in advance to discuss the information you will need, which can help minimize delay and tailor the scope of the subpoena. However, the final subpoena will need to be executed before we can turn over any information about our members.
We are not the police, nor are we in any way qualified to investigate or fight crime. Therefore, it is not appropriate to send accusations of illegal activity directly to us, and such accusations will generally have to be discarded. You must contact the appropriate law enforcement office. Then, they can contact us if appropriate.
A NearlyFreeSpeech.NET member site has content that is illegal in my country (not the United States).
As above, your first action if you are aware of criminal activity should be to contact the appropriate law enforcement agency.
If you are a law enforcement official from a country other than the United States, please contact us at abuse@NearlyFreeSpeech.NET. If the crime you are investigating would also be illegal in the United States, we reserve the right to voluntarily cooperate. In such cases, you will need to obtain the equivalent of a subpoena for your jurisdiction, and we may choose to voluntarily comply, but all situations are handled on a case-by-case basis.
Slashdot Mirror
I know that you guys have a speaker, I vaguely remember hearing about her on the News; Nancy something I believe. Her job description must be vastly different to ours.
I'm not from the US, how do you "threaten a filibuster"? Surely you either carry on talking until a bill runs out of time, or not? I'm from the UK; if the government (usually the majority party) wants a bill to go through, they just give it more parliamentary time. Typically only private members bills get fillibustered here, and there have been some legendary speakers and speeches to thank for it.
Seriously, I think that they were talking about ROMs, not just the literal titles of the games. Nintendo couldn't possibly be that dumb, could it? Unless, of course the site was libellous, or perhaps was some sort of erotica fanfic site. I can't really think of any other reasons that Nintendo would sue over the "titles" of the game.
Of course, that makes this a total non-story, why would Nintendo not sue sites illegally selling it's ROMs? Especially now the public can even buy old games via the Wii Virtual Console.
Look at his posting history; he just has really bad karma so his posts start at -1. He just hasn't been modded up. IMO there are many other posts in this thread more deserving of mod points than the GP, so it's not surprising either that he's been left on -1 either.
Note to Mods:
This is totally off-topic so feel free to mod me down, preferably after you've modded the aforementioned good posts posts up though.
exactly. and there are only two ways to end a monarchy:
1) forcible overthrow
2) resignation of the monarch
since the second option is very unlikely... Whilst there was no universal suffrage*, we have had representation in parliament since 1265. So at least one. Indeed we founded many of modern democracies bacic principles pre 18th Century. Admittedly we haven't yet removed our monarchy, but no one should seriously doubt Britain's claim to be a representative democracy now.
*only land owners were allowed to vote, so as Rowan Atkinson put it in Blackadder: "take Manchester for instance. Population: 60,000. Electoral roll: 3"
We even tried to have a revolution, but it was more of a civil war, and despite the king getting his head cut off, we decided that a monarchy was preferable to a republic and crowned his son king after the intervening military dictator died. We call our revolution bloodless. I think near on a thousand years without a violent revolution, but instead a series of evolutions, sometimes bloody, at others not proves that it's not "inevitable".
That looks like future art to me...
Err. You seem to be mixing the Scotish and the Welsh, it's the Welsh that are well known for their sheep, and poking fun at them for it is a pastime strictly reserved for us English. The reason, as you so aptly demonstrated, is because you guys can't get it right.
My info comes from a Brit. You're telling me that if I go to Scotland I won't find some guy wearing a sheep for a sweater? I'm thoroughly disappointed.
Nope, it's well known that Scotland is full of men in skirts, no sheep at all...Hell, you can't even insult the french properly (c.f. "freedom fries" debacle).
Most commonly we just call them cowards, and I invite you to challenge the veracity of *that*.
Just as with the Scots and Welsh, insulting the French is also a right reserved for the English; only once you've fought a hundred years war with a country (which was actually closer to 120 years) can you truly claim to have the right to insult it's inhabitance, no one likes the alternative.Other countries that the English have reserved the right to insult include, but are not limited to Germany, Argentina, Australia and most other commonwealth countries, and the USA. Application for licences are considered on a case by case basis. For example the USA has been granted a licence to insult Canada as we don't really use it, OTOH you should cease and desist from insulting Australia, as your best try resulted in a particularly bad Simpsons episode.
Actually, it's the self same Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Stephen Sedley (to give him his full title) who is proposing this, however I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest that you were simply pointing out the irony of him being the president of a Human Rights organisation, albeit one that I've never heard of. Instead of them, I suggest joining Liberty who have already issued a press release speaking out against this idea.
In Scotland, DNA is only kept on record if you are convicted.
It's easier for the Scots though, because if they want to collect it from you again they can get it from the sheep in your backyard.
Err. You seem to be mixing the Scotish and the Welsh, it's the Welsh that are well known for their sheep, and poking fun at them for it is a pastime strictly reserved for us English. The reason, as you so aptly demonstrated, is because you guys can't get it right. Hell, you can't even insult the french properly (c.f. "freedom fries" debacle).He did say it was unthinkable
Fingerprints are not kept by the UK government unless you've ever been suspected of a crime, and taken down to the local cop shop (I live in the UK, one reason I'm boycotting travel to the USA is because they want my prints; my own government doesn't even have them, why should I give it to a foreign one). Well that was true until this year anyway now they also take them if you want a new passport (aledgely to harmonise biometrics with other countries; in reality the only country demanding this is the USA, I can still travel to any other EU country without even getting a passport).
It might be something to do with this. Scientologists issued a DCMA takedown notice against /. after part of OT III was posted on here by a random user.
I'm a Brit; I'd much rather pay $50 than £50 though...
Thanks for clearing that up, now I think I'll understand a whole lot of American humour better. Now I have to go and learn what's so funny about the other 48 states... ;p
Wait. You guys call your wives\spouses\other halves etc. mates? Being in the UK I'd never heard that synonym before, it's not one we use. Thanks for the clarification.
I have no idea what he said wrong. Why do you Americans always make fun of Utah and\or New Jersey anyway??? Can someone explain it please.
It's not like they're Scottish, Welsh or French, or Irish or German or Australian either...
Just to clarify further, I'm not the guy\girl you replied to; that's just how I read his post. But I genuinely think he's disagreeing with the way they try to put their message across rather than the thrust of the message itself (I know I do, but then I dislike all selfrighteous moralizers on principle). I could of course be totally wrong.
From the abuse page of their site: A NearlyFreeSpeech.NET member site has content that is illegal in the United States.
If you are aware of criminal activity, your first step should always be to contact the appropriate law enforcement agency. Only the police can enforce the law.
If you are a law enforcement official working on a criminal investigation and you need our assistance, please contact abuse@NearlyFreeSpeech.NET. We scrupulously follow all US laws.
So that we can comply with our Privacy Policy, we will need a viable subpoena. You can contact us in advance to discuss the information you will need, which can help minimize delay and tailor the scope of the subpoena. However, the final subpoena will need to be executed before we can turn over any information about our members.
We are not the police, nor are we in any way qualified to investigate or fight crime. Therefore, it is not appropriate to send accusations of illegal activity directly to us, and such accusations will generally have to be discarded. You must contact the appropriate law enforcement office. Then, they can contact us if appropriate.
A NearlyFreeSpeech.NET member site has content that is illegal in my country (not the United States).
As above, your first action if you are aware of criminal activity should be to contact the appropriate law enforcement agency.
If you are a law enforcement official from a country other than the United States, please contact us at abuse@NearlyFreeSpeech.NET. If the crime you are investigating would also be illegal in the United States, we reserve the right to voluntarily cooperate. In such cases, you will need to obtain the equivalent of a subpoena for your jurisdiction, and we may choose to voluntarily comply, but all situations are handled on a case-by-case basis.