I assume this peoples Senate is some political body in the Peoples Republic of China. Had you been from the U.S. you would never have used such a term.

You obviously did not read what I wrote, or didn't understand what I wrote. You apparently think that an international document signed by a U.S. president becomes Constitutionally protected. It doers not. It requires ratification by 2/3 of Senate.

You also seem to be under the impression that I sit on the U.S. Supreme Court! Send your complaints to SCOTUS not me.

We can't argue about my opinions unless you actually read and understand what I wrote.

commodore64_love
the new Executive Agreement effectively does this to the People's Constitution:

I wish that was true! However; as an example, President George H.W. Bush has signed something called The Copenhagen Document. The Copenhagen Document of the Helsinki Accords states in part:

(7.6) - respect the right of individuals and groups to establish, in full freedom, their own political parties or other political organizations and provide such political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on a basis of equal treatment before the law and by the authorities;..

I wish that had constitutional authority, but it does not! The Senate has not ratified it. Not to mention that the SCOTUS can use the literal, historical, liberal. conservative, living, and total joke, interpretations of the U.S. Constitutions in their rulings.

See: Copenhagen Document
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access

RE: Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution: The Supremacy Clause

The fact that fully ratified treaties have constitutional authority, became more significant to me when I discovered that President George H.W. Bush had signed something called The Copenhagen Document.

The Copenhagen Document of the Helsinki Accords states in part:
(7.6) - respect the right of individuals and groups to establish, in full freedom, their own political parties or other political organizations and provide such political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on a basis of equal treatment before the law and by the authorities;..

I would love to have the Senate ratify it, and have that treaty become Constitutional law.
See: Copenhagen Document
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access

The only difference here is that while Ubisoft succeeded (so far) at keeping (fully playable) pirated copies from surfacing, EA has not. If you look around, you will even find a scene release of C&C4 which from what I read, uses a server emulator to handle all the basic requests/calls made by the C&C4 game client. Assassin's Creed 2 on the other hand has the DRM integrated into the maps and mission data thereby making it far more tedious and time consuming to crack.

This suggests that EA did not implement the DRM nearly as well as Ubisoft. Not only that, but with Ubisoft's DRM, your game will literally save-state if the connection drops so you can pick up where you left off. You don't lose any progress whatsoever (I've even had the game crash to desktop from a Vsync bug and I didn't lose any progress since auto-saving is so frequent). This really makes EA's DRM seem like a "cheap knockoff" of what Ubisoft has done.

Hey Zorro, the majority of people do in fact shut down their PC's daily. Just because you choose not to doesn't make this a "bad" idea.

RE: Paying the fine.

That's is the way I read this bill, and also what would be intelligent action under this bill. What I don't understand is what insurance premiums will be when only sick people buy insurance?

I may be missing something, but perhaps this is the plan.

At least it is becoming more widely known that, with the support of the vice-president, the Senate could almost be called a democratic body. Senators are losing some of their cover.

Political competition works better than a two party system. The same principle works in government as in economics.

This isn't a detailed critique, I don't have the data or the time for that. However the article talks about a different family size in Germany, & some other EU nations (2.2 individuals per household) versus (2.6 individuals per household) in the U.S. & Canada. The article implies that this changes the lines per person somewhat. Disregarding the fact that Germany is an extreme case, in the U.S. at least, family size increases at lower income levels, and lower income levels probably equate with lower internet use. I think the article's argument is very weak.

One other observation: The article's complaints about broadband connectivity to employees, due to larger business size in the U.S.- seems reasonable to me. Most complaints on slashdot and elsewhere are from consumers and small businesses. Of course I don't know how you would measure the bandwidth of Google with it's uTube. That would seem to be a third category of bandwidth, neither household consumer or business employee.

I have Verizon DSL, and I seem to remember that they block port 80 for pop email. They claim it is an anti-spam action, and that many email providers do it. That may have something to do with this claimed problem

Every thing in the Federalist paper #62 relates to the nature on the U.S. Senate. You have taken a quote out of context.

Madison was not arguing against economic regulation at all, he was arguing that short terms for politicians would provide bad economic regulation! Also many other thing such as the appointment of senators by the State legislatures would protect small states. He is also claiming that a Semator's longer terms will provide stability in all things including economic regulation. That is were your quote came from. SO WHAT!

I repeat: James Madison accepts that economic regulation is the primary function of government.

Really! He does mention that the vast majority of the population should be excluded from political power,( So they could not regulate the economy.) That was earlier, during the Constitutional convention.Is that what you are hinting at? That earlier quote is included in the article.
FP #10 Principle Task of Government.

"A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operation of government."

You are correct. I used a bit.ly link from a twitter message, because when using TweetDeck it gives the expanded url to approve or disaprove. I didn't stop to think that slashdot works differently.

My rule of thumb: Those without power tend to suffer.

I_Voter

Citizen's Political Power in the U.S.

According to the "centrist" "founding father" James Madison - the principle task of government is economic regulation,
FP #10 Principle Task of Government.