Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 29 Nov 2006 16:05 John Fields wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >John Fields wrote: > >>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >John Fields wrote: > >> >> --- > >> >> Nothing is forever. > >> >> > >> >> You all now have a Supreme Court, no? > >> > > >> >The Law Lords. > >> > >> --- > >> No I meant a _real_ Supreme Court, separate from Parliament even to > >> the extent of their building. > >> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Reform_Act_2005 > >> > >> >In recent times they have IIRC ruled that some legislation was illegal. > >> > >> --- > >> OK, but _that_ was the Law Lords. There was no provision for an > >> actual Supreme Court before the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, I > >> believe. > > > >That would seem to be the case. > > > >We don't seem to have suffered as a result though. > > --- > I don't think there's really any to tell until the Supreme Court has > been operating for a while and gets a track record of its own. > --- > > >The new Supreme Court is scheduled to open for business in 2009 or 2010 IIRC. > > --- > Yes, and congratulations! > > What do you think of this: > > http://www.greenhealth.org.uk/Democracy.htm Interesting. I just skimmed it now and I'll read it in more depth later. It seems to touch on some issues I had in mind myself. Graham
From: John Fields on 29 Nov 2006 16:08 On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 20:00:33 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ekk0qo$8ss_005(a)s875.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <456D7544.F1CC4D6D(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>John Fields wrote: >>> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >John Fields wrote: >>>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >> >krw wrote: >>>> >> >> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >>>> > >>>> >> >> > In any case, the party system is broken now. Here at least. It >>>> >> >> > may >> take some >> >> >>>> > time for you guys to catch up. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Not going to change without a new Constitution. >>>> >> > >>>> >> >If that's what it takes..... >>>> >> >>>> >> --- >>>> >> It's not going to happen. We've gotten to the top of the heap with >>>> >> our Constitution and it's not likely we're going to abandon it for >>>> >> something as silly as pie in the sky. >>>> > >>>> >For ever ? >>>> >>>> --- >>>> Nothing is forever. >>>> >>>> You all now have a Supreme Court, no? >>> >>>The Law Lords. >>> >>>In recent times they have IIRC ruled that some legislation was illegal. >> >> No. Unconstitutional. There is a difference between illegal >> and unconstitutional. > >We don't have a formal constitution and as such the Law Lords don't declare >things "constitutional" or "unconstitutional." We do have laws though so >they can rule that some legislation is illegal. > >You may be surprised to know there is a difference between the UK and the >US. --- True, but as time goes by the differences in our governments seem to be diminishing as you more closely approach true democracy. -- JF
From: John Fields on 29 Nov 2006 16:11 On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 20:31:58 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >John Fields wrote: >> >>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>John Fields wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>Nothing is forever. >> >>>> >> >>>>You all now have a Supreme Court, no? >> >>> >> >>>The Law Lords. >> >> >> >> --- >> >> No I meant a _real_ Supreme Court, separate from Parliament even to >> >> the extent of their building. >> >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Reform_Act_2005 >> >> >> >> >> >>>In recent times they have IIRC ruled that some legislation was illegal. >> >> >> >> --- >> >> OK, but _that_ was the Law Lords. There was no provision for an >> >> actual Supreme Court before the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, I >> >> believe. >> > >> >They still don't have a single element codified constitution. >> > >> --- >> Yes, one of the few nations in the modern world who don't. >> >> Perhaps the reticence to frame one is the same as that which plagued >> some of our founders, namely that if you say what you're allowed to >> do, then unless you're careful you'll write yourself into a box >> where that's _all_ you'll be allowed to do. > >The British Constitution is famously 'unwritten' and is based on precedent >AFAIK. --- http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/asguru/generalstudies/society/27constitution/constitution03.shtml -- JF
From: Eeyore on 29 Nov 2006 16:15 John Fields wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >John Fields wrote: > >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >> >John Fields wrote: > >> >>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>>John Fields wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>>Nothing is forever. > >> >>>> > >> >>>>You all now have a Supreme Court, no? > >> >>> > >> >>>The Law Lords. > >> >> > >> >> --- > >> >> No I meant a _real_ Supreme Court, separate from Parliament even to > >> >> the extent of their building. > >> >> > >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Reform_Act_2005 > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>>In recent times they have IIRC ruled that some legislation was illegal. > >> >> > >> >> --- > >> >> OK, but _that_ was the Law Lords. There was no provision for an > >> >> actual Supreme Court before the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, I > >> >> believe. > >> > > >> >They still don't have a single element codified constitution. > >> > > >> --- > >> Yes, one of the few nations in the modern world who don't. > >> > >> Perhaps the reticence to frame one is the same as that which plagued > >> some of our founders, namely that if you say what you're allowed to > >> do, then unless you're careful you'll write yourself into a box > >> where that's _all_ you'll be allowed to do. > > > >The British Constitution is famously 'unwritten' and is based on precedent > >AFAIK. > > --- > http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/asguru/generalstudies/society/27constitution/constitution03.shtml That's a nice clear summary. The BBC's educational programming is very good indeed. Graham
From: mmeron on 29 Nov 2006 16:54
In article <MPG.1fd798efddba3542989d3c(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> writes: >In article <456DB20A.590A3EF1(a)hotmail.com>, >rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >> >> >> unsettled wrote: >> >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > >>You simply can't make these analogies with small start ups. >> > > >> > > How do you think the large companies got started? >> > > >> > > It occurred to belatedly that you are a teenaged boy. That >> > > would explain a lot of the bizarre things you have written >> > > and your ignornance of how stuff works. >> > >> > "On December 17, 1903, at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, the Wright Flyer >> > became the first powered, heavier-than-air machine to achieve >> > controlled, sustained flight with a pilot aboard." >> > >> > http://www.nasm.si.edu/wrightbrothers/ >> > >> > Small start up company. >> >> I'd like to see that happen now ! > >Google? > Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, Marth Stewart, Pixar, ... Would be interesting to go over the list of Fortune 500 companies and find how many didn't even exist 30 years ago. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" |