Stupid/Small Questions Megathread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Stupid/Small Questions Megathread

Tiggum: Oct 24, 2007; Your life and your quest end here.

mlnhd posted:

Under the United States Senate's current rules, Senators (not Representatives) are allowed to speak as long as they wish about any topic. The rest of the Senate can choose to end debate on a topic ('cloture') with a three-fifths majority vote (60 out of 100 Senators agree to end the debate).

So, looking at the US senate right now it seems that the numbers are 52 to 46, with two independents, so neither party can actually make up the required sixty. So again, how does anything actually get passed? Do people actually willingly vote to stop members of their own party from blocking things?

# ? Jun 26, 2013 16:05

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 31, 2024 23:28

het: Nov 14, 2002; A dark black past
is my most valued
possession

Tiggum posted:

So, looking at the US senate right now it seems that the numbers are 52 to 46, with two independents, so neither party can actually make up the required sixty. So again, how does anything actually get passed? Do people actually willingly vote to stop members of their own party from blocking things?

How happy do you think their constituents would be if it were all-filibusters, all-the-time? It is obviously a controversial tactic to use and thus will only be used very very rarely. This really doesn't seem this hard to understand.

edit:

that too.
vvvvvvvv

het fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Jun 26, 2013

# ? Jun 26, 2013 16:08

FCKGW: May 21, 2006

It's also not a cakewalk to just stand there for 12+ hours constantly talking. It can be a very physically demanding procedure and there are every specific rules that must be followed to pull it off successfully. It generally only occurs for instances where the senator feels so strongly about a bill they are willing to attempt it.

# ? Jun 26, 2013 16:18

Peristalsis: Apr 5, 2004; Move along.

het posted:

How happy do you think their constituents would be if it were all-filibusters, all-the-time? It is obviously a controversial tactic to use and thus will only be used very very rarely. This really doesn't seem this hard to understand.

Actually, I can see exactly why it's hard to understand. It's a pretty odd "feature" of the system, with no clear rules for when it can or can't be used. In principle, it could be used to shut down any progress at all on anything, by sore losers. I think it's sort of considered a nuclear option, and is usually reserved for grandstanding about controversial topics. I imagine more than one senator has figured s/he was racking up points with some constituency by playing the part of the lone voice of reason/decency/progress in the wilderness.

If I'm not mistaken, the legislators who fled Wisconsin to prevent votes on collective bargaining changes a couple of years back first tried to filibuster, but were out-maneuvered by the Republicans, before they could get the filibuster going or something, and used the flight to Illinois as an alternative.

It's always amusing to me to hear the side being filibustered whine about how it's impeding changes that Americans clearly want, it's dirty pool, etc. when both sides are happy to do it when they think they can get away with it.

# ? Jun 26, 2013 16:30

Penguissimo: Apr 7, 2007

Tiggum posted:

So, looking at the US senate right now it seems that the numbers are 52 to 46, with two independents, so neither party can actually make up the required sixty. So again, how does anything actually get passed? Do people actually willingly vote to stop members of their own party from blocking things?

In the US Senate, there has been a trend in recent years towards a "silent filibuster", where the minority party is not actually required to stand up and talk, but the minority leader basically goes "Yup, we're not letting this pass", the majority leader goes "Well poo poo", and they move on to other things. This has changed the filibuster from an extraordinary tactic used only in emergency situations to a routine method of gumming up the works, since no individual senator has to pay a political price for slowing things down, and the public (whose understanding of the situation ranges from "vague" to "none") just blames "government" rather than the filibustering party. As you might imagine, this has also lead to the number of filibusters skyrocketing in recent years.

Effectively this does actually mean that basically nothing gets done, especially since different parties currently control each house of the US Congress, so even something that gets through the Senate is unlikely to pass the House. It's exactly as hosed up as your first impressions would lead you to believe.

# ? Jun 26, 2013 17:07

Ham Equity: Apr 16, 2013; The first thing we do, let's kill all the cars.; Grimey Drawer

Tiggum posted:

So, looking at the US senate right now it seems that the numbers are 52 to 46, with two independents, so neither party can actually make up the required sixty. So again, how does anything actually get passed? Do people actually willingly vote to stop members of their own party from blocking things?

So, some people are saying some things here that largely don't apply to the modern filibuster, but I'll hit those up in a second. You should know that the two independents both caucus with the Democrats; Angus King is pretty much an IINO (Independent In Name Only); he's not a Democrat because he didn't want to run in the primary, which is kind of a douche move, but he's pro-choice, pro-environment, and doesn't think Obamacare went far enough. And Bernie Sanders--the other "independent"--is a socialist. As you can imagine, not a lot in common with Republicans.

That being said, losing a vote in the American system isn't like losing a vote in a Parliamentary system; even an important vote. No one is generally expected to step down, it doesn't necessitate an election. Party loyalty isn't nearly as big of a deal in the U.S. When we talk about people being in lock-step for a party, we generally mean 80-90%, versus the 98%+ you see in British-style Parliamentary systems.

# ? Jun 26, 2013 17:15

b0nes: Sep 11, 2001

When refilling a gas lighter, how long should it take? Do you usually hear the gas filling up?

# ? Jun 26, 2013 17:19

Ham Equity: Apr 16, 2013; The first thing we do, let's kill all the cars.; Grimey Drawer

Penguissimo posted:

In the US Senate, there has been a trend in recent years towards a "silent filibuster", where the minority party is not actually required to stand up and talk, but the minority leader basically goes "Yup, we're not letting this pass", the majority leader goes "Well poo poo", and they move on to other things. This has changed the filibuster from an extraordinary tactic used only in emergency situations to a routine method of gumming up the works, since no individual senator has to pay a political price for slowing things down, and the public (whose understanding of the situation ranges from "vague" to "none") just blames "government" rather than the filibustering party. As you might imagine, this has also lead to the number of filibusters skyrocketing in recent years.

Effectively this does actually mean that basically nothing gets done, especially since different parties currently control each house of the US Congress, so even something that gets through the Senate is unlikely to pass the House. It's exactly as hosed up as your first impressions would lead you to believe.

This is pretty much what I was going to say. Occasionally, you'll have an issue where a senator will vote against the actual bill, but vote for cloture (that is, vote to let the bill be voted on), which means that sometimes you will see a bill pass with fewer than 60 votes.

And to be exceedingly clear, when Penguissimo says "minority party," he means "Republicans," when he says "minority leader," he means "Mitch McConnell," and when he says "Majority Leader," he means "that useless sack of poo poo, Harry Reid." The convention of the senate requiring a 60-vote majority in order to pass anything is really that recent.

# ? Jun 26, 2013 17:21

Xenoborg: Mar 10, 2007

I drink a diet soda most mornings sometime between breakfast and lunch. Ive come to realize that I'm really only doing it for the effects of the caffeine, and don't care about the taste. Would it not be better for me just to take a caffeine pill instead since diet soda has been tentatively linked to a myriad of bad things?

# ? Jun 26, 2013 17:45

Ham Equity: Apr 16, 2013; The first thing we do, let's kill all the cars.; Grimey Drawer

Xenoborg posted:

I drink a diet soda most mornings sometime between breakfast and lunch. Ive come to realize that I'm really only doing it for the effects of the caffeine, and don't care about the taste. Would it not be better for me just to take a caffeine pill instead since diet soda has been tentatively linked to a myriad of bad things?

Drinking a cup of coffee instead would probably be ideal, since that's been linked to a myriad of good things.

# ? Jun 26, 2013 17:55

Turtlicious: Sep 17, 2012; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Thanatosian posted:

Drinking a cup of coffee instead would probably be ideal, since that's been linked to a myriad of good things.

Not to mention coffee is delicious, smells good, and reminds me of tea-time at Nana's.

# ? Jun 26, 2013 17:58

Tiggum: Oct 24, 2007; Your life and your quest end here.

Thanatosian posted:

That being said, losing a vote in the American system isn't like losing a vote in a Parliamentary system; even an important vote. No one is generally expected to step down, it doesn't necessitate an election.

I'm really not sure what you're talking about here. It sounds like you think people are stepping down all the time in a parliamentary system and we just have elections all the time?

Thanatosian posted:

Occasionally, you'll have an issue where a senator will vote against the actual bill, but vote for cloture (that is, vote to let the bill be voted on), which means that sometimes you will see a bill pass with fewer than 60 votes.

And to be exceedingly clear, when Penguissimo says "minority party," he means "Republicans," when he says "minority leader," he means "Mitch McConnell," and when he says "Majority Leader," he means "that useless sack of poo poo, Harry Reid." The convention of the senate requiring a 60-vote majority in order to pass anything is really that recent.

I have no idea what you're talking about. If what Penguissimo said is accurate though, I'll just take that answer since it's the one I understood! :downs:

# ? Jun 26, 2013 18:58

Ham Equity: Apr 16, 2013; The first thing we do, let's kill all the cars.; Grimey Drawer

Tiggum posted:

I'm really not sure what you're talking about here. It sounds like you think people are stepping down all the time in a parliamentary system and we just have elections all the time?

When you're talking about a British Parliamentary system, there's a Sword of Damocles hanging over the PM's head that doesn't exist in most Presidential systems (including the American one).

While people can step down in the U.S. government just because people don't like them or they've lost the support of their party, it's an exceedingly rare thing. We have never had a president step down due to mere unpopularity, which, if you've been watching the news, happened this morning in Australia. While that was an internal party mechanism for removal, and there are already elections pending, normally, if a Prime Minister loses a confidence vote in a British-style Parliamentary system, they're expected to step down and call for new elections. And while that isn't common, I'm saying that such a mechanism doesn't exist in the U.S.; if your party loses a vote on an important issue, they'll get rhetorically poo poo upon for awhile, but it's not something that triggers a huge shake-up in the government.

Tiggum posted:

I have no idea what you're talking about. If what Penguissimo said is accurate though, I'll just take that answer since it's the one I understood!

There are two different votes in the U.S. Senate: there's the vote on the bill, which takes a simple majority to pass. If someone is deciding they want to speak, though, they are allowed to, and for as long as they want. The only conditions are:

1) Each Senator may only speak on a given bill one time.
2) There must not be a successful vote for cloture.

The vote for cloture requires the support of 60 Senators in order to pass. In a traditional filibuster, the Senators from the filibustering side would speak in the hopes of holding up Senate business for long enough that the Majority leader would give up, or they would tire out and the majority would get their vote. In the modern filibuster, however, Harry Reid basically surrenders before the battle even begins, and it has become "the Senate needs 60 votes to pass anything." However, since the vote for cloture and the vote on the bill are two separate votes, it's possible for a senator to vote for cloture (i.e. vote to allow a vote on the bill) and then vote "no" when it comes time to vote on the actual bill.

# ? Jun 26, 2013 19:20

randyest: Sep 1, 2004; by R. Guyovich

Peristalsis posted:

It's always amusing to me to hear the side being filibustered whine about how it's impeding changes that Americans clearly want, it's dirty pool, etc. when both sides are happy to do it when they think they can get away with it.

Also not everyone wants new laws, especially 1000-page+ laws written by some lobbyist, read by no one, and likely to cause all sorts of unintended consequences. In fact, I'd wager a significant chunk of the American public would be opposed to just about every new law.

# ? Jun 26, 2013 19:36

Ham Equity: Apr 16, 2013; The first thing we do, let's kill all the cars.; Grimey Drawer

randyest posted:

Also not everyone wants new laws, especially 1000-page+ laws written by some lobbyist, read by no one, and likely to cause all sorts of unintended consequences. In fact, I'd wager a significant chunk of the American public would be opposed to just about every new law.

A "significant chunk of the American public" would be in favor of abolishing all taxes, and deporting everyone with brown skin.

Which is to say that a significant chunk of the American public is completely loving retarded.

# ? Jun 26, 2013 19:38

Mr. Squishy: Mar 22, 2010; A country where you can always get richer.

Filibustering isn't confined to the American government either, nor are other loopholes granting total power to scrap laws. Wrecking Amendments for instance, where somebody spams a bill with spurious amendments that each need to be debated and voted upon. I'm sort of interested if there any equivalents outside of American or the Parliamentary system.

# ? Jun 26, 2013 19:46

ROOMBA floorvac: Aug 21, 2004; .

Edit:

Of course I find the video a minute after I post. :v:

# ? Jun 26, 2013 20:26

Penguissimo: Apr 7, 2007

Tiggum posted:

I have no idea what you're talking about. If what Penguissimo said is accurate though, I'll just take that answer since it's the one I understood!

What he said is also true, but I figured I would present a sanitized version for our international friends

Harry Reid (the Senate Majority Leader) had a chance to lead reform of the filibuster at the beginning of this year, since the Senate can change its own rules with just a simple majority at the beginning of a new session. He instead opted for a "handshake agreement" with Mitch McConnell (Senate Minority Leader), under which Republicans would be nice and promise not to use the filibuster slightly less or something if Harry Reid agreed to not get rid of it. Thankfully, due to this agreement between gentlemen who have only the public interest in mind, McConnell and the Republican caucus have seen the error of their ways, and filibusters have plummeted dramatically since.

_{note: Charlie Brown also eventually got to kick that football}

Thanatosian posted:

There are two different votes in the U.S. Senate: there's the vote on the bill, which takes a simple majority to pass. If someone is deciding they want to speak, though, they are allowed to, and for as long as they want. The only conditions are:

1) Each Senator may only speak on a given bill one time.
2) There must not be a successful vote for cloture.

The vote for cloture requires the support of 60 Senators in order to pass. In a traditional filibuster, the Senators from the filibustering side would speak in the hopes of holding up Senate business for long enough that the Majority leader would give up, or they would tire out and the majority would get their vote. In the modern filibuster, however, Harry Reid basically surrenders before the battle even begins, and it has become "the Senate needs 60 votes to pass anything." However, since the vote for cloture and the vote on the bill are two separate votes, it's possible for a senator to vote for cloture (i.e. vote to allow a vote on the bill) and then vote "no" when it comes time to vote on the actual bill.

In addition to this, note that appointees to certain offices (all judicial positions and many executive positions as well) must be confirmed by the Senate, and those votes are...you guessed it, subject to the filibuster! So we also have the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms having gone without a leader for eight (?) years, and a federal judicial system that can barely function because there are so many vacant seats on the bench.

# ? Jun 26, 2013 20:33

Polio Vax Scene: Apr 5, 2009

Is there an easy way to find out the nutritional information for the individual pieces of, lets say, a Big Mac, instead of the nutritional information for the entire burger?

# ? Jun 26, 2013 21:25

cakesmith handyman: Jul 22, 2007; Pip-Pip old chap! Last one in is a rotten egg what what.

No.

E: you could look up equivalents such as the nutritional value of one bun in a multipack from the supermarket etc but not big Mac exact values

# ? Jun 26, 2013 21:38

Coonskin_Cap: Dec 6, 2012

Is there any reason why alluvion won't let me register? I put the code in all three of my fields, and it has repeatedly failed to work. Ditto on the userID registration method.

# ? Jun 26, 2013 21:43

Sieg: Sep 28, 2009; Must kill all humans

Cakefool posted:

No.

E: you could look up equivalents such as the nutritional value of one bun in a multipack from the supermarket etc but not big Mac exact values

You are wrong good sir. McDonalds and most fast food places have the caloric value of each ingredient of each item on the menu. Add a Big Mac to your meal, and you can click the radio buttons to add or subtract ingredients.

Manslaughter posted:

Is there an easy way to find out the nutritional information for the individual pieces of, lets say, a Big Mac, instead of the nutritional information for the entire burger?

http://www.mcdonalds.com/content/us/en/meal_builder.html

# ? Jun 26, 2013 22:18

Culinary Bears: Feb 1, 2007

Xenoborg posted:

Would it not be better for me just to take a caffeine pill instead since diet soda has been tentatively linked to a myriad of bad things?

You can do that, caffeine pills are really cheap, but many people can't handle them on an empty stomach without getting nasty heartburn.

Also as far as I know there's nothing to worry about with diet soda that isn't based on hoaxes or very misinterpreted studies. Well, it's still pretty acidic, but so is juice.

# ? Jun 26, 2013 22:31

cakesmith handyman: Jul 22, 2007; Pip-Pip old chap! Last one in is a rotten egg what what.

Sieg posted:

You are wrong good sir. McDonalds and most fast food places have the caloric value of each ingredient of each item on the menu. Add a Big Mac to your meal, and you can click the radio buttons to add or subtract ingredients.

http://www.mcdonalds.com/content/us/en/meal_builder.html

Wow, colour me educated, thank you.

# ? Jun 26, 2013 22:49

Kestral: Nov 24, 2000; Forum Veteran

I'm thinking of heading to SF Pride this weekend, but it's quite a drive and I can only be there for one day. How much of a difference is there between Saturday and Sunday if you're basically just a tourist who isn't interested in the concerts?

My plan is to show up, cheer the awesome people in the parade for a while, get the world's best ice cream at Bi-Rite, roam around the Main Stage / Exhibitor area for an hour or so, then head home. I have some things I'd like to do on Sunday and it doesn't look like I'd be missing much by going to Pride on Saturday, but I've never attended so I'm not completely sure. If the energy of the crowd and level of, well, fun is dramatically higher on Sunday, I may have to reconsider my schedule.

# ? Jun 26, 2013 22:59

The Berzerker: Feb 24, 2006; treat me like a dog

Is there a site that does what doodle.com does but can be locked somehow? A nonprofit I do some work with keeps having their schedules hacked for some reason - some rear end keeps changing peoples' entries after the fact, etc.

# ? Jun 26, 2013 23:48

Ham Equity: Apr 16, 2013; The first thing we do, let's kill all the cars.; Grimey Drawer

The Berzerker posted:

Is there a site that does what doodle.com does but can be locked somehow? A nonprofit I do some work with keeps having their schedules hacked for some reason - some rear end keeps changing peoples' entries after the fact, etc.

Google Calendar?

# ? Jun 27, 2013 00:24

hooah: Feb 6, 2006; WTF?

What are the FAA/TLA rules regarding unaccompanied luggage? My wife missed the last leg of her flight with US Airways, but they wouldn't let her get her luggage at the airport she was at - they told her she'd have to come back to her original destination airport to get it the next day. Is that really how it's supposed to go?

Edit: On top of that, US Airways is claiming that since the last two legs of her trip were contracted through United (even though the trip was booked through US Airways), she needs to talk to United about her bag. Is that true? I've never had to deal with this much airline bullshit, and I've flown to Asia a couple of times, and even Tonga.

hooah fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Jun 27, 2013

# ? Jun 27, 2013 00:37

Carbon Thief: Oct 11, 2009; Diamonds aren't the only things that are forever.

b0nes posted:

When refilling a gas lighter, how long should it take? Do you usually hear the gas filling up?

It won't take long, but (assuming it's butane) you should be holding the can of fuel nozzle down and pumping repeatedly for a second or so at a time, not just holding it til it's full. You'll know it's full once it starts hissing/letting cold gas out. Let it rest for a minute or two before you try to light it.

# ? Jun 27, 2013 03:32

Tiggum: Oct 24, 2007; Your life and your quest end here.

Thanatosian posted:

When you're talking about a British Parliamentary system, there's a Sword of Damocles hanging over the PM's head that doesn't exist in most Presidential systems (including the American one).

This is generally not true. A PM losing a vote of confidence is pretty unlikely in most situations.

Thanatosian posted:

While people can step down in the U.S. government just because people don't like them or they've lost the support of their party, it's an exceedingly rare thing.

This is also true in Australia.

Thanatosian posted:

We have never had a president step down due to mere unpopularity, which, if you've been watching the news, happened this morning in Australia.

Well, the roles of president and prime minister are not really analogous, and she didn't step down she was voted out in a leadership spill (which is also a pretty rare event for a party in power).

Thanatosian posted:

While that was an internal party mechanism for removal, and there are already elections pending, normally, if a Prime Minister loses a confidence vote in a British-style Parliamentary system, they're expected to step down and call for new elections. And while that isn't common, I'm saying that such a mechanism doesn't exist in the U.S.; if your party loses a vote on an important issue, they'll get rhetorically poo poo upon for awhile, but it's not something that triggers a huge shake-up in the government.

This is where you confuse me. A no-confidence vote isn't triggered by a party losing a vote on an important issue, it's just a thing that can happen at any time. It's usually only an issue when it's obvious that the party in power will lose, which can really only happen if there was a hung parliament, which has only happened in Australia twice since 1910.

Normally if the party in power want to get rid of the PM there'd be a leadership spill, not a no confidence vote, and if the opposition wants to get rid of the PM then they'd need the support of members of the party in power. A hung parliament changes that because the opposition can potentially win a no confidence vote if they have the support of third parties and/or independents.

And if the party in power does lose the no-confidence vote it's not a matter of being expected to step down, it just means they're not in power any more. If another party or coalition wins a confidence vote then they immediately form government without the need for an election. An election would only be called if no one could win a confidence vote (which can also happen immediately following an election in the case of a hung parliament - you just keep having elections until someone can win a confidence vote).

# ? Jun 27, 2013 03:50

ChubbyEmoBabe: Sep 6, 2003; -=|NMN|=-

KillHour posted:

Just as a rough guess (like within an order of magnitude), how much does it cost to raise the roof on a house?
...

ThatPazuzu posted:

Honestly, I think you'll just have to go around and get some estimates.

Then add ~20-50% to the most expensive one, and be prepared to come out of pocket for more.

There's so many hidden costs when altering the structure of a house, especially an older home. If you don't know a knowledgeable local friend or family member who can help you through the process it's probably not worth it.

The guy lifting his whole house was a good example, not because of the project being the same but for the breakdown of costs. He was $8k in before a single thing was done to the home (learning a $3k lesson just to start).

# ? Jun 27, 2013 04:02

syscall girl: Nov 7, 2009; by FactsAreUseless; Fun Shoe

Tiggum posted:

This is generally not true. A PM losing a vote of confidence is pretty unlikely in most situations.

Wasn't this the conclusion of Thatcher's political career?

All of my "expertise" on the subject comes from watching The Iron Lady but it seems fairly recent/relevant.

# ? Jun 27, 2013 04:05

Tiggum: Oct 24, 2007; Your life and your quest end here.

syscall girl posted:

Wasn't this the conclusion of Thatcher's political career?

Nope, that was a vote within the party (somewhat similar to the way Julia Gillard replaced Kevin Rudd in 2010), the Conservatives retained power and went on to win the next election as well.

# ? Jun 27, 2013 04:55

tangy yet delightful: Sep 13, 2005

greazeball posted:

How important is the brand of contact lens solution? I always get the hard sell when I get new contacts but their bottles are 3x as much as the bargain stuff I buy. I've never had problems with my lenses and I've been using the cheap stuff for years, is there some sort of magical paradise land that I'm missing out on?

From a bit ago but I'm just catching up and I don't think anyone replied to you. I used bargain stuff for a while myself and during that time I had an allergic reaction on the insides of my eyelids. The optometrist I went to had me stop wearing contacts for a few days (or a week?) and gave me some eye drops. He wasn't 100% sure of the reason for my symptoms but said that with cheap brands it was possible the formulation changed to include an ingredient that my eyes didn't react well too. He recommended sticking with a name brand which I have done since then for the past ~7 years without any further problems.

# ? Jun 27, 2013 05:42

Teriyaki Hairpiece: Dec 29, 2006; I'm nae the voice o' the darkened thistle, but th' darkened thistle cannae bear the sight o' our Bonnie Prince Bernie nae mair.

What safeguards are in place to stop someone who is sending a letter from putting the address they want it to go to as the return address, then using insufficient postage or something else to get that letter to be "returned to sender"?

# ? Jun 27, 2013 06:57

Xenoborg: Mar 10, 2007

Letters get stamped with a mark that includes an ID number for a post office (Zip code?), so probably through that.

# ? Jun 27, 2013 07:14

Gravity Pike: Feb 8, 2009; I find this discussion incredibly bland and disinteresting.

If they catch you doing this it is considered fraud (under Section 1725 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code) and can be punished by up to a $5000 fine. And yeah it'll only work if you're sending a letter to and from the same general area, which limits it's utility.

# ? Jun 27, 2013 07:17

randyest: Sep 1, 2004; by R. Guyovich

Thanatosian posted:

A "significant chunk of the American public" would be in favor of abolishing all taxes, and deporting everyone with brown skin.

Which is to say that a significant chunk of the American public is completely loving retarded.

Do you mean to say that being "in favor of abolishing all taxes, and deporting everyone with brown skin" is a prerequisite for being opposed to "new laws, especially 1000-page+ laws written by some lobbyist, read by no one, and likely to cause all sorts of unintended consequences"?

Or did I misunderstand your point?

# ? Jun 27, 2013 07:20

Kevin DuBrow: Apr 21, 2012; The uruk-hai defender has logged on.

Living in the United States, my idea of "president" is someone who is simultaneously commander-in-chief of the military, the person to whom the diplomatic corps answers to, conducts treaties with foreign governments, and essentially is the most influential person in setting foreign and domestic policy. Essentially, the most powerful person in the country.

I've recently learned that the president of many countries such as Germany isn't necessarily as powerful, and serves a more ceremonial role. Can someone explain this further? Is Gauck to Germany what the royal family is to the UK?

# ? Jun 27, 2013 09:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 31, 2024 23:28

Demonicpoodle: Jul 9, 2012; Something inside me calls out passionately to the landscape I saw - the end of the sea of corruption to which you led me.

I've googled this pretty frequently and never find anything substantial: Is there some sort of extension for any web browser that updates you when there is a new *post* on a forum? Not thread? I tried RSSFeeds for certain smaller forums (the ones I could really use this for so I'm not constantly refreshing, wasting my time) but it only updates me when a thread is created. Some people talk like this is possible, so I'm really wondering why there's not an extension for it.

Would be greatly appreciated as it would increase my general productivity significantly. I'm generally talking about VBulletin forums, if that helps you any.

# ? Jun 27, 2013 12:01

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Stupid/Small Questions Megathread

«‹›2424 »