The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
If that's the concern, it's pretty easy for national food distributors to accomodate it -- just apply the most restrictive/comprehensive standard. States don't prohibit you from doing more than the regs require, and it's not like some states say you must disclose x, while others say that you must not.

So you should let one state determine the rule for all the rest?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So you should let one state determine the rule for all the rest?

Isn't this effectively what happens already with CA emissions standards for cars?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Whaddaya think they should do?

They really have no choice, but it pisses me off every time they do this and further pisses me off that the actually have the nerve to call it a ceiling. It's a fucking speed bump.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
He is good at creating workouts and he is good at getting himself out of them without any moentary exposure for the Trumpster and (the clincher) it would be a lot of fun to watch him in a pissing match with other world leaders who in his mind have slighted him in some way. Fun right up until the point that somebody pulls out the nukes or biological weapons, that is.

I'd love to see Trump and Saddam in a cage match.

Well, as Gatti said below, our economy going sideways tanks the whole damn planet. So we are the permanent Trump - or at least the World's Donald for the next 100 years. That's the comedy of all the hand wringing over our debt. Nobody can do anything rash, on either side of the equation, because any domino falling brings down the whole place. We just keep changing the measures and fundamentals of what's acceptable forever.

Nobody whips out the bomb over economic matters except us.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Isn't this effectively what happens already with CA emissions standards for cars?

In part, yes, but not entirely. I think most (or all) manufacturers have given up on having "California emissions", but there are also fleet requirements that result in certain models either not being sold in California or not being sold elsewhere.

So I ask, is having California's ARB determine nationwide emissions requirements consistent with our federalist system? States' rights indeed!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
They really have no choice, but it pisses me off every time they do this and further pisses me off that the actually have the nerve to call it a ceiling. It's a fucking speed bump.

You wonder why they don't kick it up like twice as high, take the heat for a few days, and then stop worrying about for a long time.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
In part, yes, but not entirely. I think most (or all) manufacturers have given up on having "California emissions", but there are also fleet requirements that result in certain models either not being sold in California or not being sold elsewhere.

So I ask, is having California's ARB determine nationwide emissions requirements consistent with our federalist system? States' rights indeed!

Audi TT. Not sold in CA. Because it makes total sense to produce a convertible and then fail to meet emissions in one of the 2 biggest convertible sales states in the US. Thankfully there are tons of hipsters in the rust belt who will dole out $40k plus for a toy car for the 30-90 days of convertible weather up there per year.

[sgtclub]

New NJ Bill belw - Not sure to what extent NJ has jurisdiction:

• 1. As used in this act:
  
  "Information content provider" means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
  
  "Interactive computer service" means any information system, service, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides service to the Internet.
  
  "Internet" means the international computer network of both federal and non-federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
  
  "Internet service provider" or "provider" means any person, business or organization qualified to do business in this State that provides individuals, corporations, or other entities with the ability to connect to the Internet through equipment that is located in this State.
  
  "Operator" means any person, business or organization qualified to do business in this State that operates an interactive computer service.
  
  
  
  2. The operator of any interactive computer service or an Internet service provider shall establish, maintain and enforce a policy to require any information content provider who posts written messages on a public forum website either to be identified by a legal name and address, or to register a legal name and address with the operator of the interactive computer service or the Internet service provider through which the information content provider gains access to the interactive computer service or Internet, as appropriate.
  
  3. An operator of an interactive computer service or an Internet service provider shall establish and maintain reasonable procedures to enable any person to request and obtain disclosure of the legal name and address of an information content provider who posts false or defamatory information about the person on a public forum website.
  
  4. Any person who is damaged by false or defamatory written messages that originate from an information content provider who posts such messages on a public forum website may file suit in Superior Court against an operator or provider that fails to establish, maintain and enforce the policy required pursuant to section 2 of P.L. , c. (C.) (pending before the Legislature as this bill), and may recover compensatory and punitive damages and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee, cost of investigation and litigation from such operator or provider.
  
  
  
  5. This act shall take effect on the 90th day following enactment.
  

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by sgtclub
New NJ Bill belw - Not sure to what extent NJ has jurisdiction:

• 1. As used in this act:
  
  "Information content provider" means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
  
  "Interactive computer service" means any information system, service, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides service to the Internet.
  
  "Internet" means the international computer network of both federal and non-federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
  
  "Internet service provider" or "provider" means any person, business or organization qualified to do business in this State that provides individuals, corporations, or other entities with the ability to connect to the Internet through equipment that is located in this State.
  
  "Operator" means any person, business or organization qualified to do business in this State that operates an interactive computer service.
  
  
  
  2. The operator of any interactive computer service or an Internet service provider shall establish, maintain and enforce a policy to require any information content provider who posts written messages on a public forum website either to be identified by a legal name and address, or to register a legal name and address with the operator of the interactive computer service or the Internet service provider through which the information content provider gains access to the interactive computer service or Internet, as appropriate.
  
  3. An operator of an interactive computer service or an Internet service provider shall establish and maintain reasonable procedures to enable any person to request and obtain disclosure of the legal name and address of an information content provider who posts false or defamatory information about the person on a public forum website.
  
  4. Any person who is damaged by false or defamatory written messages that originate from an information content provider who posts such messages on a public forum website may file suit in Superior Court against an operator or provider that fails to establish, maintain and enforce the policy required pursuant to section 2 of P.L. , c. (C.) (pending before the Legislature as this bill), and may recover compensatory and punitive damages and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee, cost of investigation and litigation from such operator or provider.
  
  
  
  5. This act shall take effect on the 90th day following enactment.
  

Do you have a cite to a website, or at least a bill number?

Any idea on where this is in the process?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Do you have a cite to a website, or at least a bill number?

Any idea on where this is in the process?

Assembly 1327 - http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bi...00/1327_I1.HTM

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Assembly 1327 - http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bi...00/1327_I1.HTM

I imagine there will be a lot of anonymous messages about Peter Biondi in the coming months.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Assembly 1327 - http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bi...00/1327_I1.HTM

Thank you. Lots of clients will be interested. Lots of clients will be checking to see if they are qualified to do business in NJ and/or will be yanking out equipment if this bill passes.

I'm surprised it's not called the "NJ Don't Need No Stinkin' Technology Companies Act of 2006"

[dtb]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I'm surprised it's not called the "NJ Don't Need No Stinkin' Technology Companies Act of 2006"

That's the subtitle.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So you should let one state determine the rule for all the rest?

No. You should let states make determinations on rules above certain minimum standards of safety, and if national manufacturers feel that the cost of complying with differing labelling standards is too high, they can choose to label according to the most stringent requirements.

But the real reason behind the push to federalize these rules is not the cost of complying with different regulatory schemes. It's a desire to reduce regulations, period. They are not interested in uniformity, they are interested in lowering the bar.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
In part, yes, but not entirely. I think most (or all) manufacturers have given up on having "California emissions", but there are also fleet requirements that result in certain models either not being sold in California or not being sold elsewhere.

So I ask, is having California's ARB determine nationwide emissions requirements consistent with our federalist system? States' rights indeed!

If South Dakota passed stricter requirements than California, do you think manufacturers would change their fleets nationwide?

California has market power; that's why businesses respond. Those who find it too expensive are free not to sell here, or not to sell all models here (as, you point out, some do).