Posts by lglethal 3895 publicly visible posts • joined 11 Jun 2007
According to the constitution as it was written yes. However, since then the presidency has taken over a lot of the presumed powers of the legislative branch.
Plus you just saw how well the legislative attempts at holding the presidency to account went.
Seriously i recommend you check out the webcomic i mentioned. It does a good job of explaining how the balance has changed between the 3 branches over the years.
Would you mind backing up that assertion, that Trump has discussed repealing term limits? Can you show some sources for that? Such comments would be huge news, and frankly I've not seen anything along those lines anywhere.
I wouldnt put it past him to try it on at some point. But id expect that would get people on both sides of the aisle of congress pretty upset. And that would make it big news. So frankly im calling bollocks on that one...
Actually I've been reading up on this recently. In the beginning of the US, the Presidency was actually the weakest of the 3 branches of government. It was designed to be little more than ceremonial (a little bit more powerful then that, but not much). Congress was supposed to be the strong one.
Over time though, the presidency has taken over way more powers than envisioned, and Congress is now little more than the president's little bitch.
There's a good webcomic series covering lots of topics based around constitutional law here: www.lawsandsausagescomic.com (written by a legal professor and his brother, who is a professional webcomic author), it does a good job of remaining quite neutral whilst giving the history of constitutional law...
@ Warm Braw - It seems you havent really understood my comment, based on your statement "That the UK has a higher per-capita death rate on any reasonable measure is pretty indisputable at this point...".
Actually i dispute it quite a lot.
But just to get back to the comparison example. Let me give you an example of what i was talking about. Lets say that Germany declares that based on its figures Germans drink less beer per capita then Americans. You might look at that and think, hmm that doesnt sound right, but they've got figures, it must be right. Well what if it turned out, the Germans were only counting beer brewed in Bayern (Bavaria if you will). No international brews, no beers from other states. Whilst the Americans were counting all beers regardless of where there brewed. Naturally, the figures are going to look very different then if both were counting all beers from everywhere, or both counting just beers from Bayern.
This is why you cant use the figures for death per capita. As i said, places like Belgium are counting any deaths that could be attributed to Covid whether comfirmed by test or not, as Covid deaths. The US is only counting Covid deaths where people tested positive before they died in a hospital. Everything else counts a natural death.
The UK, started off doing the same but got called out on it, and now includes all deaths where the patient is confirmed to have had Covid. That means there still counting less than the Belgians, but counting many more than the Americans.
They're not counting the same things, so you can cant use the figures to make any sort of reasonable comparison.
Just a point - there is really almost no point at doing comparisons between countries on deaths per capita as every country is doing their counting very differently.
Take for example, Belgium which has the highest deaths per capita. Thats primarily because in Belgium any death where a person had similar symptoms, even if they werent tested before they died is being counted as a covid death.
Compared to say America or Russia, where ONLY those people confirmed to have had Covid BEFORE they died are counted to the Covid death toll. Meaning the actual death rate is much higher, but is hidden.
England was doing something similar where it was only counting people who died in hospitals. Until it got called out on this, now the count is "probably" more accurate.
Doing a comparison of my land is better than your land is just bullsh&tting, because your most times comparing Diabetes and Hepatitis. They're both shit you dont want, but you have to treat them completely differently.
The biggest Problem with American politics and one that I've never heard ANY American discuss is that you're stuck with a two party system. And lets face it a two party system is absolutely no better than a one-party system. With a two party system, you're either Us or Them, there is no room for compromise (unless there are adults present and lets face it that hasnt been the case in American politics for at least a couple of generations). With a two party system, the power gets entrenched in those two party's, they have a decided interest in maintaining that narrative, and working less on the will of the people and more on the will of the party's.
The perfect example of this - The Republicans started off as the party that represented the North, the African Americans and the immigrants. The Democrats started off as the party representing the South, the slave owners, the priviliged whites. In what other system could the two party's completely switch their support bases, and still hold all the cards?
A multiparty system is the only sort of system that works in a democracy - you need all points of view, all positions on the spectrum, AND a willingness to find middle ground. America, you just dont have that....
Normally, I would pull out the old Hanlon's Razor "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". BUT this is definitely not something slipped in by accident. You dont put a check for something that then defines further behaviour by accident - a) because its more lines of code that you really dont need if you were doing things above board, and b) who needs the hassle of then spending the time to test that works under two different behaviour scenarios.
This was put in deliberately. The question is why?
Oh not so unbelievable, I've known some very intelligent people, that could do amazing things in the lab, but who had a bit of a blind spot for what we would call real world conditions.
"The design works perfectly! Of course we can do the test out in the field outside. What do you mean we should test it before the boss comes down to have a look. It works perfectly i tell you!"
I personally cant see WFH being much different to what it was previously, maybe an increase in people being able to work one or two days a week from home, but I do not believe for a second it will get to the point that businesses will start closing or renting out office space.
My reason - Middle management!
If people could work from home all of the time, and it proved to be just as effective, then most middle management would no longer be necessary. Because of this significant risk to their positions, most middle manglement will not allow their direct charges to work fully from home and will clearly declare to their superiors that those who do work from home dont produce as good a results (despite what might be the actual truth).
Middle Management - Ruining projects since 522 BC...
My thoughts on your statement are - Yes and No. Yes VAT is a tax on the person buying. But by not paying it on goods bought online, the onlines stores can naturally have lower prices then local stores. That means a sale is made and ZERO tax goes to the government. When the online store has to collect VAT as well, it should mean that prices are relatively even between them. If people then buy more locally, that means your not only getting VAT, but the company tax on the local firm, plus employee taxes, etc.
Making it an even playing field, does really have a big effect overall.
Well lets see now, how can we get around that. I know! So the second Amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If you own a gun then you're obviously part of a militia otherwise the second Amendment wouldnt really apply, right?
And since President Trump has declared a Public Emergency with the Pandemic ("time of war or public danger"), that means you can forget the Fifth Amendment!
God, this bypassing the rules stuff is easy!
As for the Fourth Amendment, well websites are obviously not people, or houses, or effects, and unless you print them on paper, they dont count as papers. There, see, easy peasy, no way the Fourth Amendment should apply.
Now FBI where's my bonus for solving this legal conundrum?
You dont need to kill the companies, you simply need to hold the company's Board and entire C-Suite responsible. If the CEO knows that he will go to Prison for his firm committing a crime (rather than just the firm paying some sort of fine), then he will make sure the firm does NOT commit a crime.
When people are held personally responsible, they tend to be much more willing to sacrifice immediate profits to stay on the right side of the law.
Actually this isnt new. Well it's new for IT i guess, but it's no different to ITAR restrictions in the space/aerospace industry. Which basically means that we (a European aerospace firm) tend to use as few american components as possible, usually zero unless were really really stuck, so that we don't fall under ITAR restrictions.
So rather than protecting american jobs, it just drives the american companies offshore, or drives their customers to other suppliers.
Actually I was talking about China's locals only policy. If you want to do business in China, you have to hand over all your IP, you have to team up with a local firm with majority Chinese shareholders and they can take whatever they want and run with it. And if the Chinese governments decides they want to give a boost to a local firm then they can kick you out without warning, and hand over all of your IP to the local firm.
It's happened multiple times, so this isnt scaremongering. Hauwei got so big, because the Chinese government made it extremely difficult for outside firms to compete in China, that allowed Hauwei to get up to speed, when if they had been facing the already established players at that point, they would have gone under very quickly.
Was that good for China? In the long run, yes. Look at Hauwei now, its a world leading firm. But now countries are starting to hit back. So i stand by my statement that i find it funny that a firm who only succeeded because of the restrictions its government put in place to protect them, is now complaining that other countries are putting in similar protections to help their firms succeed.
I always find it funny when companies in nations that operate a locals only policy complain about other countries implementing the same approach.
"How dare you not allow me to play in your garden! Just because you're not allowed to play in my garden, you've no right to deny me access to your garden!"
"Non-food markets were open since Friday, shopping malls opened on Sunday, there has been only 3 new case so far. "
Yeah you're not going to see new cases until 2 weeks later. That's the whole thing that makes Corona so dangerous as a pandemic - for 2 weeks before people start showing any signs of illness, they're highly infectious.
If 3 weeks after you've started opening up you've still got no cases, THEN you can say you're probably in the clear. Declaring now that your good. Is jumping the gun just a bit...
Collectively your dead right, but you HAVE to give credit to Sen Wyden. He really does seem to be the only one who gives a sh&t about this stuff. He's got a pretty good track record of calling these things out and making proposals to put them down (which then get rejected on party grounds naturally).
More clued in Senators like Wyden and you Americans might actually get a congress that could protect the people. Needless to say, that wont be allowed to happen anytime soon.
I think you missed the part where it clearly states this is an Illinois State law, not US federal law. And Illinois has only 6 million inhabitants not 400 million. So the numbers in the article are right....
What i dont understand is why lawyers are involved. If the law was broken, why is it not the state of Illinois going after them?
My personal opinion is that whilst people can be personally forgiven their pasts, there are still some positions that they should never expect to work in again.
To give examples, if you were previously caught performing cheque fraud, then you're unlikely to ever be allowed to work in a bank again. If you were previously convicted of being a paedophile, then you're never going to get a job as a kindergarten teacher. And if you were convicted of a hate crime, then maybe just maybe you shouldnt expect to stick around as head of a firm working on AI security, especially since the AI has a definite tendency to be racially biased.
To give it the oomph you wanted, the rocket would have had to carry more fuel. That would require a bigger rocket, which would require even more fuel. That might require an even bigger rocket, and more fuel, etc. etc. Or what you're wanting to launch would have to be lighter. Naturally, the people behind Spekt-R went with the heavier satelllite, and no extra fuel.
Until there are some agreed international rules, that say, hey you need to bring your rocket/satellite at end of life back down or else, then people wont do it because it costs a shite load. Every kg you want to carry up, whether that's extra fuel for the way down or extra satellite mass, costs you about 10kg of fuel, which affects your rocket and ups your cost massively. Naturally, you carry as little as possible. Unless the rules get into place INTERNATIONALLY, this isnt going to change...
Hmmm not sure I agree with you there. If we were talking a 1 or 2 week holiday then I would agree with you, but thinking they should have tried to guess the situation a month in advance, before there were any lockdowns being discussed, no quarantines in place, is harsh. Things changed very fast at the start of the outbreak, not being able to predict it a month in advance is not something i feel you can put on Alex and his partner. A lot of governments with a lot more info then them got it wrong (and continue to do so!).
Whilst I'm not a fan of Amazon (or Walmart for that matter), neither one of those operated at a deliberate loss to drive out competition. They might take a loss on certain items, but overall they make a strong profit on most things. They just have lower expenses then the competition (no store front for Amazon/buying in massive bulk for Walmart). Your local supermarket does the same with selling certain items at a loss, its a way to get customers in and spending more money on the things that they make a profit on.
Uber and Lyft deliberately make a loss in order to drive the competition out of business. Thats a very different business model, and one that definitely shouldnt be condoned!
Their models is actually quite clear. There plan was always to operate at a loss, and with very low prices until they drove the local taxi operators out of business, and then they could up their prices to profitable levels.
Its effectively the same as "dumping" on the resources market and is actually illegal under WTO rules, but since where talking a) services and b) local dumping and not international, it doesnt get looked at.
What seems to have caught them out is how resilient the local taxi firms are, and how they havent managed to wipe them out yet...
I actually laughed out loud at this..
"El Reg would find it's reporters hard pressed to continue submitting articles if they were located in California."
Read the byline Citizen "By Kieren McCarthy in San Francisco
Something tells me he might know a bit more about this then you.
Plus the rest of your comment is utter bollocks. Unless your planning to have a ton of weddings this year?
It doesn't get you anything directly, but it does allow you to put it on your resume that you are a co-inventor of X and that can help you find another job at a higher salary.
Also I don't know what firm you work for, but in every firm I've worked for, whilst the firm owns the patents, you get listed as inventor, and you get a pretty big bonus and better promotion prospects for getting patents awarded. If your firm doesn't do that, you might want to consider taking your ideas elsewhere...
It seems the obvious solution is that yes you can trademark "booking.com", but that that gives you zero claim on "hotelbooking.com" or any other name that might utilise the words booking.com with them. So "Carbooking.com" is safe as is "booking.company". You have only the rights to "booking.com".
Job done...
Quotes from the transcript below. Decide for yourself if you consider this extremely dangerous behaviour from the american president, bearing in mind the evidence that stupid people will take what he says as gospel (i.e the couple who took the hydroxychloroquine left over from their fish because they believed Trump when he said it was a cure (and in case you've forgotten the man died and the woman almost did)).
Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.
later in the conference
REPORTER: But I — just, can I ask about — the President mentioned the idea of cleaners, like bleach and isopropyl alcohol you mentioned. There’s no scenario that that could be injected into a person, is there? I mean —
BILL BRYAN (leads the Science and Technology Directorate at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security): No, I’m here to talk about the findings that we had in the study. We won’t do that within that lab and our lab. So —
TRUMP: It wouldn’t be through injection. We’re talking about through almost a cleaning, sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work. But it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object.
transcript in full at: https://www.theepochtimes.com/transcript-what-trump-said-about-disinfectant-uv-light-at-briefing_3325402.html
but I've sympathy with that User believing that the software was there to help him.
The User had my sympathy up until the point where, upon being offered help so as to avoid the problem ever happening again, they said No dont need it. A "Sorry, but I need to get this done, can you explain it to me another time (or send me an email with the instructions)", would have been fine, but a flat out refusal to accept the help. Boom your on the naughty list.
I probably would have contacted the users boss and "suggested" that they being given proper training since they obviously dont know what they're doing.
I was actually going to make a joke there about there needing to be an "Are you homophobic?" column, or an "are you racist" column?
But figured that would be just being stupid. But there you go first reply, someone stating thats the reason. *shakes head*
Tell me then good Sir, how do you know in one flat you have a homophobic racist and in another you have "civil people"? Do tell, in which column is that in the tables? How was that info collected?
why do they have some of this info in the first place? And why do they still need it? I mean sexual orientation? What has that to do with getting you into community housing? I cant think of a single reason why you would need that.
It sounds like the data controllers over at WCH are suffering from data hoarder syndrome. Remember folks - Just because you might get some info does not mean you need to collect it or keep it...
Hey Hey Hey! Enough with being reasonable. You cant go around having even handed views, and making valid points. That's just not what the internet is designed for. Keep that up and people will stop getting into inconsequential flame wars and who knows what might happen!
Pick a side, make nonsensical arguments, and dont let us catch you being reasonable again or we might have to take away your internet user card...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
