Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Lame (Score 1) 729

by Wild_dog! (#47867673) Attached to: Apple Announces Smartwatch, Bigger iPhones, Mobile Payments

Phone size will come down in the future I think, but a new paradigm will need to take place.
The phablet thing will last on the outmost 10 years. Then new tech will supplant it and folks will have other things to discuss.
I too like the idea of a smaller phone like my flip phones, but alas my eyes are getting weak and my fingers are getting fatter.
An iPhone Nano would be cool, except perhaps not as functional yet.
Can't wait for the technology that buries the big platters and makes them seem silly.

Comment: Re: What's so American (Score 1) 531

by Wild_dog! (#47762647) Attached to: Net Neutrality Is 'Marxist,' According To a Koch-Backed Astroturf Group

The founding fathers of our country believed in many things. They wanted all kinds of things depending upon their interests and the interests of those who supported them. "The Founding Fathers" were far from the monolithic group-think construct which people seem to want to lump them into today for expedience sake. Some of them believed in more limited government, some believed in less limited government. Most of their beliefs were derived from their experiences with totalitarian governance where citizens had zero say in their government. The degree to which any of them wanted some sort of governmental presence was debated hotly back then as it seems to be today. But it cannot be separated from the fact that they were coming from the whole of human history where humans were mostly subjugated with little say in how they were to be ruled.

I would say that above all, most of those who voted to ratify the constitution wanted a system of government the functioned well and was controllable by the citizens of this land rather than the vast power interests which controlled the governance of the rest of the world.

"Laws today seem to favor bigger government"

The laws of our nation reflect the overall changes in our country. Our population has soared from a maybe 2 1/2 million when this country was founded to 320 million roughly today. The needs of the people change. The needs of our country change. The laws of the country change. This is all a reflection of life and the evolution of our country. The complexity of our country, with greater population, technology, modernity necessitate a government more appropriate to the expectations of our people. Such a government will only logically be bigger than 1776 or 1876 or 1976. It is simple logic that the size of a government that was tailored to a country of rusticates with rudimentary technology would not be the right size government for a technologically advanced society that leads the world economically and militarily. It can't be any other way nostalgia by those who never have had to live in 1776 aside.

However, even so, what remains the same for our country and throughout its history is the set of rules that the game is being played on: "The Constitution". It is still there doing the same thing it did back when Benjamin Franklin thought that the grand experiment might not last 5 years. The Constitution, in fact, has stood the test of time and the strength of its ideas have proven to be powerful enough to spread throughout the rest of the world.

"Also the separation of powers is becoming less separate as legislators are giving the executive branch more discretion in enforcing the law"

How so? The separation of powers as defined by our Constitution are fairly hard coded. The constitution has not changed and the balance of powers is therefore intact.
Certainly there is an ebb and flow between which branch is the most predominant throughout our history, but the powers given to each branch remain the same.

Explain how the legislators done anything in giving the executive branch more or less discretion in enforcing the law.

"When the president says he will act on his own where Congress does not act, and Congress applauds him, they make my point for me."

That makes no point. There are at least 2 problems at the root of what you are hinting at. One is that there is a large component of politics and has been going on since before the beginning of the country. Two is the the problem of lack of clearcut approach to regulatory enforcement. Neither of these is some sort of constitutional dilemma.

The constitution places the president at the head of the executive branch where in modern terms the president has become and organizer and prioritizer of often conflicting enforcement regimes. There is both a lack of formal or standardized mechanisms for enforcement and a concurrent politicization of enforcement. And for the last 40 or so years there has been a steady emphasis not on enforcement of laws and regulations by the president, but on increasing regulations for political expediency for both parties with very little actual executive oversight of laws and regulations being put in place. This is not new or something that has cropped up recently. I would submit that the rush to deregulate additionally lends a shoulder to the idea that laws and regulations need not be enforced. Nobody has really sought to fix this problem in the slightest.

But aside from all of that mire. the constitution certainly allows for presidential discretion in the enforcement rules and laws to a degree and there really hasn't thus far been any attempt by congress to pass any legislation to clear any of this up. Each party seems to like lots of leeway for their guy in the Whitehouse.

Teddy Roosevelt held the position that the president could use any and all powers that were not specifically denied to him. He made the modern presidency what it is today as we have grown to understand it. There is nothing new here.

Comment: Re: What's so American (Score 1) 531

I assume you do realize what the constitution is. It is the document whereby, for the first time in history, a people defined how they would be ruled by setting up a governance for themselves. It would make no sense for it to read "We, the government of the people." So I am not sure what your point really is.

Of course our constitution, which sets up our government would begin with "We the People".
There was no defined unifying government when the constitution was written. The constitution was the document defining how our republic would function.
We set the government up for ourselves. It is a blessed thing and something every American should be proud of and be proud to be associated with.

Comment: Re: What's so American (Score 2) 531

The constitution is not simply a document telling the government what it cannot do. It also sets up the rules by which the government will operate and defines the relationship between the government and the citizen. Additionally,the constitution outlines the duties and responsibilities of citizens.

Comment: Re: What's so American (Score 1) 531

All of life is done by people. Our constitutional republic was a theory done by people.
Seems to be better than the governmental systems which existed before the US was established.

It seems like Net Neutrality is better than a throttled system. Should we toss our hands in the air because humans are somehow involved in this process or do we use our brains to setup a playing field that preserves Net neutrality?

Comment: Re:Formal school 4 months a year (Score 1) 421

by Wild_dog! (#47640413) Attached to: Slashdot Asks: Should Schooling Be Year-Round?

Most of the significant learning happens outside of school. School is there to teach just the basics to survive in our society. The rest of the real learning starts after kids get our of school. Kids need to be taught how to learn. they don't need to spend endless hours being lectured at. Learning happens best when kids find a reason to do so.

Comment: Re:Yes (Score 1) 421

by Wild_dog! (#47640407) Attached to: Slashdot Asks: Should Schooling Be Year-Round?

3 weeks doesn't have the same creative learning potential as does 2 1/2 months. The break is what changes the culture and allows kids to experience an alternative life. Alternative living enhances things to a degree that school is simply deficit in.
My favorite bumper sticker has always been "Don't let school get in the way of your education."
After 24+ years of schooling I still realize that school is largely a game. Life outside of school is where the most significant & practical education takes place.

Comment: More learning happens outside of school than in it (Score 1) 421

by Wild_dog! (#47640383) Attached to: Slashdot Asks: Should Schooling Be Year-Round?

Creativity and imagination are more stimulated by the long days of summer than much of what we learn in schools. I would never want my kids to miss out on this. I wouldn't want them to not have the time to think and create with their friends on their own terms. The time for regimentation and order comes quickly enough. Let the kids have the time they will cherish for the rest of their days.

"Around the world, American schools' long summer break is viewed as an anomaly"

I think I need more qualification about this statement. I don't think most people around the world have any inkling about our school schedule. Even fewer would view our summer break as anomalous. Of the countries I have been in and I have been in quite a few, most had lengthy summer breaks as well.

Comment: Re:Mice don't get 'Alzheimer's disease'... (Score 1) 105

Not to burst anyones bubble, but any created that doesn't eat or move will not have a very long existence.
Any creature with full Alzheimer's would not survive long either.
But as in Humans, I would imagine Alzheimer's takes a while to fully render the creature demented.

Comment: Re:Political background (Score 1) 151

by Wild_dog! (#47468885) Attached to: Scotland Could Become Home To Britain's First Spaceport

"Whether you like it or not, the tide of history is moving from smaller to larger groups."

Things tend to happen whether anyone likes it or not. That is not really specific to me.
You are right about the tide of history of smaller groups moving to larger ones. Possibly the eventual world will be one giant entity with some form of feedback loop for governance that allows for greater say by the populace on how that governance is manifest. Checks and Balances and Divided government and Voting will certainly be parts of the equation if such a government could exist.
In the interim however, I think there is a counter movement toward smaller units gaining more say in their own affairs as larger entities are formed. Even in my own community which is a small town, we seem to be gaining more autonomy over certain aspects of our governance even in the face of larger overarching governance. The state provides the overarching rules, but within those rules it is the local government that determines how such rules will actually be implemented.

"I really could not care about how the UK was not created well. It can work well nowadays. 1745 was a long time ago."

Certainly the past is the past. The UK was formed in the way most large nation states formed back then conquest. That is fine.
I think more pertinent to today is the question 'can a group have more autonomy if they feel their needs would be better met by smaller governance'. It seems to me that the argument has to do more with the idea that many of the Scots would like more say in their own affairs today. But like everyone else they also seem to want to be part of something bigger in retaining membership in the EU. Belonging to a bigger geopolitical marketplace won't be such a problem for the Scots if they choose to have greater local control over their own affairs in my opinion.

"The UK is not perfect but neither is my car. I won't make my car work better by sawing bits off."
This is analogy seems a bit off point to me.
Separating the 2 countries is not like lopping a baby in 2. It is more like separating a liver. Both parts can function and grow separately of one another because both are fully functioning even though both will have diminished size from what the whole was. Both can grow to have economies that are larger and function well also.

"Despite what the SNP tells us, if Scotland leaves the UK, it leaves every alliance the it is in."
Not really. Scotland will get to pick its own alliances and reframe how those alliances are formed is all. That means greater liberty to follow ones own course in my book and is a net positive. Every alliance formed for the UK will be revisited by all of the parties for similar terms with the Scots. Who knows, I can see scenarios where the Scots will have opportunities to form even broader alliances with parties the UK won't form alliances with.

"It will be able to apply for entry but this is not a fast process and meantime, we are outside."
I think it will be more like a rubber stamp or somewhere in between that and new EU member applications. Scotland is already in the EU as part of the UK.
Some specifics will need to be worked out, but the process will not be very lengthy or even likely inconvenient. I could see the EU giving the Scots a tentative waiver for many functional things so the transition won't be too disruptive. The EU is hoping for a greater level of stability. It is not in their economic interest to keep the Scots at arms length. They are a know quantity. The EU will avoid throwing even more chaos into their western borders in my estimation. It is in the EU's interest to move to lock down stability with Scotland rather than create greater problems.

When the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the plane, the plane will fly. -- Donald Douglas