Are you sure? Because it sounds like they're trying to move forward, while you are demanding they go back to where they started.

Don't get me wrong, I'm neither happy nor entirely comfortable with what they did to the timelines, but you can't go back and move forward at the same time.

That's a Judge, not a Legislator.

Legislators are elected for their position on issues by voters who share them (in theory), and want those positions reflected in Congress. The job of a Judge is to be unbiased, whereas Legislators are expected to be.

...yes!

Haven't you ever seen Red Dwarf?

WOAH! Hold on!

First off, how did you get a hold of confidential studio communications?

Secondly, it wasn't going to be a chihuahua it was going to be a red shirt's cat until Pegg came on board and pointed out that it had already been done.

He is a big fan. And a very talented writer to boot! At least when it comes to comedy... I wonder how those skills will translate.

But, isn't that an entirely backwards-looking statement?

Nick Frost will play a comically bumbling Klingon with a funny name.

Thank you for making Elite: Dangerous possible.

Ah, if only the waveform had collapsed into the universe populated with loads of sexy, triple-breasted space babes.

that they won't disclose to us? I don't know if any of you have ever tried to get this info from Apple, but they really don't make it easy. Or possible.

First thing I thought of was Virtual Light!

Not that Gibson will see a dime. He might, like Heinlein (Waldo), get it named after the story though.

I don't think we are all that far apart on this. I too am distressed by how the commerce clause has been used and abused to regulate virtually anything a congressperson with a bug up their but may desire. I'm with Justice Thomas on the matter - in California's first medical marijuana case, he was the lone dissenter who pointed out that if the commerce clause was being applied to commerce entirely within one State, it could be used to give the Federal government the power to regulate anything.

I do want to make a slightly pedantic point and say that it wasn't intended to make interstate commerce open and unrestricted, rather to ensure only one body could regulate such trade. Including the creation of restrictions.

However, a State saying who can or cannot form an ISP sounds to me like an attempt to regulate interstate commerce. Still, it's a very complex issue when a municipality does it, as you could argue that creating an ISP is akin to a municipality creating it's own post office. I'd have to leave it to the Court to figure it all out.

How exactly are you making that leap? That the federal government has the sole authority to regulate interstate commerce doesn't mean it can ignore the rest of the Constitution.

I share your opinion of Wickard (I almost choked in con-law when I read the opinion), but the lines in your town make global commerce possible. Even something as banal or annoying as an out-of-State telemarketer calling you at dinner time is interstate commerce. That puts the means under federal authority.