I guess the point I'm trying to make is if we saw fairer pricing along with the elimination of the used games market (Steam-style) would people still feel as strongly?
does this remind anyone of another type of case where usually only one side is heard and the verdict arrived at is not disputable? exactly! entertainment industries/copyright industries cases!
I think you would have straight up cash for votes bribery rather than the campaign contributions we get now, so not much difference there, except more people would be bad at it so they'd get caught. So that might be an improvement. The people who don't take bribes would be voting generally from a position of benign ignorance rather that ignorance plus political self interest. Unclear how that would turn out.
The question is, who would the staffers be? If you left it the way it is now then they would be the ones with the real power, the ones taking the bribes, and the ones running Congress. The congresspeople would be figureheads. If you made the staffers randomly selected as well then they would mostly be bad at their jobs. Proposed legislation would probably be a mess. It would accidentally conflict with existing laws, would not contain what it needed to have to accomplish what it was supposed to, fail constitutional scrutiny, etc. I think on the whole it would be a disaster, just a different sort of disaster than the one we have now. Interesting idea though.
surely the president or someone must have the power to just send everyone back to their states and request the states to send different representatives.
Thankfully, nobody has the unilateral power to remove a congressperson from office. I don't think there's even a recall process for them as there is for many state offices.
What I want to know is, who decided to schedule the damn thing at an hour when most Congresspersons would have a choice between attending it or blowing off a bunch of prior engagements in their constituencies and probably wasting a few hundred dollars in airline cancellation fees?
That was my first thought - this was probably a bigger turnout than the executive branch was hoping for.
It would be nice to have a clear (NOT LEGAL BULLSHIT) explanation of why a court called FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE can make decisions about domestic phone call information.
There will be no explanations from the executive branch that do not consist of bullshit.
In the real business world, you can't just toss stuff out there and hope someone does something that makes you money, that is give it away and pray and that just isn't a sound model.
Yeah... if only there were some other model for making money from this stuff. Maybe there's a web site somewhere that discusses that kind of stuff.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Used Games
I'm also against DRM when it's purpose is to try and prevent copying and/or piracy (Something that can't be done).
What other purpose could DRM have?
Re: Re: Re: Used Games
I guess the point I'm trying to make is if we saw fairer pricing along with the elimination of the used games market (Steam-style) would people still feel as strongly?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!! Reduced prices! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
:-)
Re: My demands
If there are any agencies in that list beyond the IRS, Census Bureau, and the SSA, I want that information immediately deleted.
I hope they remember to hold down SHIFT when they delete.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you know that WAP can be cracked in seconds?
WAP 2 is being replaced by WAP 3 and all of that in the space of a couple of years do you understand what that means?
WEP or WPA?
Re: It's NOT "speculation based on nothing," it's LIES.
Dick Cheney lied? Unpossible.
Re:
does this remind anyone of another type of case where usually only one side is heard and the verdict arrived at is not disputable? exactly! entertainment industries/copyright industries cases!
I was going to say Cardassian.
Re: Re:
What if congress worked like jury duty?
I think you would have straight up cash for votes bribery rather than the campaign contributions we get now, so not much difference there, except more people would be bad at it so they'd get caught. So that might be an improvement. The people who don't take bribes would be voting generally from a position of benign ignorance rather that ignorance plus political self interest. Unclear how that would turn out.
The question is, who would the staffers be? If you left it the way it is now then they would be the ones with the real power, the ones taking the bribes, and the ones running Congress. The congresspeople would be figureheads. If you made the staffers randomly selected as well then they would mostly be bad at their jobs. Proposed legislation would probably be a mess. It would accidentally conflict with existing laws, would not contain what it needed to have to accomplish what it was supposed to, fail constitutional scrutiny, etc. I think on the whole it would be a disaster, just a different sort of disaster than the one we have now. Interesting idea though.
Re: Re: Re: What does it say
You mean like what you just fell back on?
He was attacking the guy's tactics, not his character.
Re: peace and happiness
surely the president or someone must have the power to just send everyone back to their states and request the states to send different representatives.
Thankfully, nobody has the unilateral power to remove a congressperson from office. I don't think there's even a recall process for them as there is for many state offices.
Re: hearing
One small point in the defense of the departing senators: this was a "briefing," not a "hearing."
That's the key. At a briefing, the Senators are expected to listen rather than talk, so they're not interested.
Re:
What I want to know is, who decided to schedule the damn thing at an hour when most Congresspersons would have a choice between attending it or blowing off a bunch of prior engagements in their constituencies and probably wasting a few hundred dollars in airline cancellation fees?
That was my first thought - this was probably a bigger turnout than the executive branch was hoping for.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't carpet bomb an entire country to kill some terrorists, you don't close down an entire city to get one criminal.
And you don't fucking throw out the constitution because it doesn't align with your mistaken idea of security.
I think you're mistaken about a couple of those.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know the government is going to move to suppress all the relevant evidence, and it wouldn't surprise me if the court let them do it.
Re: Re: Immunity from prosecution
if the bill was not constitutional, it would have been rejected on those grounds, all bills have to meet constitutional muster
So no statute has ever been found unconstitutional then?
Re:
Is this darryl? This seems stupid like darryl. But I think he didn't capitalize his words....
Re: FISA
It would be nice to have a clear (NOT LEGAL BULLSHIT) explanation of why a court called FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE can make decisions about domestic phone call information.
There will be no explanations from the executive branch that do not consist of bullshit.
Re: Re:
Has OOTB written all over it.
Reads more like aj to me.
Re:
In other words... WHERE'S THE MILK??
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crying because of effeciencies
In the real business world, you can't just toss stuff out there and hope someone does something that makes you money, that is give it away and pray and that just isn't a sound model.
Yeah... if only there were some other model for making money from this stuff. Maybe there's a web site somewhere that discusses that kind of stuff.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now we just need to get them to build an AI to fight terrorists. Cookie to those who get the reference.
If it's a Terminator reference then I want my cookie. That wasn't so much terrorists though so I think no cookie for me.