If that were true the Treasury (part of the Executive branch) wouldn't be able to issue debt. Up until WWI Congress decided how much debt to issue.
You're making my point for me.
Please show where in the Constitution it says that Congress can delegate ANY of its authority to the Executive branch.
The fact that they may have tried to do so has no bearing on whether they are Constitutionally allowed to do so. In fact Libertarians have been pushing that very point for a number of years now, and it is now being pushed by members of the current Congress.
Also -- to forestall a possible argument that hasn't been made yet -- U.S. Supreme Court has ruled very clearly that the duration of a wrong has no affect on whether it is right or wrong. So the fact that they may have been doing it for 90 years has no bearing on whether it is right or proper.
Give the information to Brian Krebs and have HIM call them. I guarantee you they will get off their asses and do something then.
Don't be so sure.
I had a similar problem with a bank back in 2000-2001. I called their customer service dept. and they put me in contact with the IT dept. I explained that their web banking portal was spewing private information all over the place. (I was quite alarmed, since I had noticed this when doing my own online banking.) They said they'd see to it right away.
A couple of weeks go by, it's still the same. Now, mind you, this was a MAJOR leak to anybody who knew about it. Arguably worse than OP's problem. So I called them again. I was assured that they were right on top of it.
After about another month went by, I went into the main branch of the bank, and SHOWED this to one of the managers. He seemed quite concerned. Another couple of months go by... nothing.
I finally called them up and said if they didn't fix the problem, I was going to the newspapers with it. It didn't faze them. I actually did take it to the local paper, and they weren't interested in the story. (Turned out later, they were best buds with this particular bank.)
Anyway, long story short: they did nothing. It took them a full year and a half to fix the problem. If I had been an unethical person, I could have emptied out the accounts of MANY people over that time.
It would be pretty darned simple for the HD manufacturers to provide a utility for checking the firmware against stock versions. In most cases a simple MD5 hash would probably do.
While MD5 is not the absolute most secure thing around, it is very difficult to make custom software fit an existing hash.
Does the FCC even have the authority to do that? Under what legal theory does an unelected federal regulatory commission have the authority to overrule state government laws on matters of state government interest? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see such laws go, as they're a major competition inhibitor, but how does the FCC have any authority in this?
Congress has clear authority to regulate interstate commerce, under the Constitution. Unlike some other things Congress has tried to regulate, it is very clear that the Internet is interstate commerce.
Having said that, the question that remains is whether Congress can delegate their lawmaking authority to some government bureaucracy. The correct answer to that question is probably no. But I know there are many people who would argue that point.
The last time the courts ruled on this, the ruling was that the FCC had ceded power and couldn't claim it back without the will of god. Or Congress, or something.
Not even close. The Supreme Court ruled that the FCC could not impose the rules it had tried to impose, BECAUSE it had not classified internet companies as Title II common carrier communications companies. So what the FCC did here, quite properly (if you accept that they have any authority to do it at all), was to re-classify internet providers as Title II common carriers.
There are many implications to this that people haven't been discussing much. It depends on the exact language of the rules when they go into effect. But the OLD rules for Title II common carriers stipulated that your communications can't be legally "intercepted" without a warrant. So deep packet inspection by ISPs is probably out the window.
It is a big fucking deal because there are long running threads of economic thought which oppose capitalism yet support free markets, and to conflate the two (and equivalently to conflate socialism with a command economy) creates a false dichotomy between capitalist free markets and statist socialism, ignoring and erasing the possibilities of non-capitalist free markets and non-statist socialism.
You're arguing against something I didn't even say. Why?
I'm not going to even bother dignifying the rest with an answer. I didn't see anybody dispute any of this so there is no point in arguing about it.
I want the definition to go back the way it was. That way, maybe we will finally get to name its companion "Goofy", rather than that dumbass Charon moniker.
Imagine a large pocket of methane suddenly bursting free under some pressure. It would only take a little spark to set it off. For example, throw some stones onto some other stones. Just two stones hitting each other would make a nice spark etc.. That would easily create some big holes.
It doesn't usually work that way. If it did, we'd have far more fires and explosions in homes that heat with gas.
When gas leaks, the vast majority of the gassed area has too high concentration of gas, and too low concentration of oxygen, to burn. Further out, it's too much air and too little gas. It is only at the "interface" between those two conditions that combustion is possible, and relatively speaking that's a miniscule volume compared to either the "air" volume or the "gas" volume at any given time.
In addition to that, if ignition does occur, usually only that small volume with the ideal mix burns, leaving (again) a volume of too-high concentration, and another too low. Explosions can alter that by chaotically mixing the gas with the surrounding air, and multiplying itself. But that seldom happens.
To sum it all up: gas fires and explosions are not very common, because conditions have to be nearly ideal at the precise spot where the ignition takes place. They happen on TV vastly more often than in real life.
Not to mention that the very same person who drew that 2 degree line admitted publicly that it was a completely arbitrary number. There's no science behind 2 degrees being any kind of bright line of destruction.
Sorry, but this re-writing of history won't work here.
Japan very much wanted to go to war with the United States. Almost the sole standout was Admiral Yamamoto. His quote about awakening a "sleeping giant" has never been substantiated, but it matters very little because nobody listened to him.
Adam Smith wrote about free markets. Capitalism is something above and beyond a free market, first written about by Marx, who argued it was an inevitable consequence of free market and used that to criticize free markets.
You're arguing terminology over substance. Modern economists acknowledge that it was Smith who pretty solidly defined what we call "capitalism" as a socioeconomic structure. He didn't use the WORD "capitalism", but he defined everything we currently call free-market capitalism today.
Marx called it "captitalism". But we already knew what it was. Big fucking deal.
Why didn't you just write "You're wrong, fuckface"? - It's much clearer yet equally vacuous.
I didn't write that because the argument I did make has demonstrable history and facts on its side. I'm not in the habit of making vacuous comments, although we are all well aware your opinion has frequently been otherwise.
I don't claim to be perfect. I've made mistakes here and admitted them when they've been pointed out to me. But unless I made a recognizable blunder, I won't admit to being wrong unless someone actually shows that I am. Insults don't quite make it over that line.
If we're going to define capitalism as what was laid out by Adam Smith in On the Wealth of Nations (generally considered to be the founding document of capitalism), it certainly didn't praise corporate greed. Adam Smith takes a lot of time to bash on corporations, and how they need to be regulated. Not just that they need to be regulated, but exactly the manner in which they need to be.
Agreed. If we're discussing "Adam Smith free-market capitalism", Smith laid out the need for a solid body of antitrust law way back then. He recognized that free markets could lead toward monopoly, but wrote that this is where the government's role started: to enforce antitrust laws, which keep everybody on the same level playing field.
Since the government has hardly been enforcing the antitrust idea AT ALL, much less well, the logical conclusion is that this situation is not Adam Smith free-market capitalism. Which is what most people mean when they say "capitalism", regardless of technical details.
But it's very obvious that over the last couple of decades, government has thrown much of the antitrust baby out with the other regulatory bathwater, as it were. Not very long ago at all, a merger like Comcast and TWC would have been just laughed at, and never considered at all. For very good reasons.
BUT... I also want to say that GP here still missed the point. The person I was replying to implied that the problem was capitalism. My reply was that the very same problem (and I'll say here: even worse) occurs in other systems. Therefore the root problem can't be capitalism, per se. It must be something else. The obvious "something else" is cronyism. GP essentially just said "bullshit" while making no argument of his own.
Actually, it has to do with Franchise agreements between _______ cable and the local municipalities, which is NOT Capitalism, but some bad version of utility.
That's certainly part of the problem.
I'm all for free market. But unfortunately, we haven't had a competitive market for broadband on ANY level, not just the local level, for some time now. It might have started out locally, but that was a long time ago. The time to fix the local problem was then.
Now it's a problem throughout the country, with a small handful of companies controlling 80% of the United States. That's not a local problem anymore.
It's monopoly capitalism. Not all capitalism is free-market capitalism. Technically they aren't lying.
No, I stick by what I said above. GP blamed the problem on capitalism. But the very same problem occurs in other socioeconomic systems. Therefore it isn't caused by capitalism. The situation may be a variant of capitalism, but that's a different argument.
It has nothing to do with capitalism. It has everything to do with unregulated corporate greed. They are NOT the same things. The same kind of greed was seen very prominently in countries that called themselves Socialist and even Communist. So don't blame "capitalism" for it. It's cronyism, plain and simple.
And this is almost laughably wrong:
The rules, which have not yet been released, are opposed by cable and telephone companies that fear it will curb Internet growth and stifle payback on network investment.
I call BS. They don't "fear" it will do anything of the kind. What they fear is that it will put a stop to their monopolistic control, and monopolistic prices, and end their ability to pocket tax money given them for infrastructure.
I mean this literally: you can hardly believe a word they say anymore.
That reading would seem to permit the Feds to override any and all State laws against political subdivisions doing anything.
Why?
The Constitution very clearly gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce. And it is pretty much indisputable that the Internet involves interstate commerce.
I, for one, think Congress has tried to stretch the "interstate commerce" excuse way too far, in order to regulate many things that are not directly involved with interstate commerce. Like growing marijuana.
Were female models more comfortable with you than they would be with a male photographer?
I didn't hang with other photographers, and the models I worked with were not already-known professionals, so I don't have any way to make a comparison.
This is no different that what submariners experience - with no natural light, they move to an 18 hour day (6 on 12 off). Contrast this to driving across the ocean in a ship and traversing the various time zone.
Also, experiments done decades ago, in caves with no day-night cycle, led to longer awake cycles much like those. So I really don't see what the problem is here.
Naturally, it takes time to adjust. Shift-work studies have shown that it takes the body AT LEAST 30 days to fully adjust to a new schedule, some people as long as 60. Interrupt it before then and you end up with problems.
Yep, you see this all the time in the iOS development community too. People coding my sticking together 100 slightly incompatible 3rd party libraries, and writing a bunch of glue code. Then hitting problems and responding to help solving them with "we can't do that, we're required to do it this way because the 3rd party library does it that way".
Exactly. I don't mind including a good tool that does its job well and leaves everything else alone. But I've run across at least 2 very sad "syndromes" that add-ons sometimes cause:
The first syndrome is represented by libraries that take over everything and unnecessarily restrict your otherwise legitimate actions, because they ASSUME everything will be done with or through them. 2 great examples come to mind from the Ruby world: Formtastic, and Devise.
I dumped Formtastic because it insisted on generating its own <ul> for the form, and <li> tags for all the elements, which prevented you from laying out your forms your own way. Trying to wrap elements in named or classed <div>s so you could do your own layout resulted in invalid HTML. Maybe Formtastic has improved since then, I don't know. I discussed this problem with the author, and his response was "Why would you want to do that?" Which just illustrates my point.
Devise is way too intrusive and makes too many assumptions. Besides being based around unproven Bcrypt (which has never been fully security audited), it tries to force you to do everything else its way, too. It may be "customizable", but in my experience that's far more trouble than it's worth. My opinion is that most people who use Devise do so because they don't understand how to do it themselves.
The second syndrome is "copy and paste development". This irritates me to no end. "Why don't we just use X? It already does that." "Well, because it's like shooting an ant with a cannon. A cannon that also wants to wash your dishes."
The right tool for the right job. Often, especially for small jobs, it's vastly preferable to roll your own tools, and do it your way.
Slashdot Mirror
If that were true the Treasury (part of the Executive branch) wouldn't be able to issue debt. Up until WWI Congress decided how much debt to issue.
You're making my point for me.
Please show where in the Constitution it says that Congress can delegate ANY of its authority to the Executive branch.
The fact that they may have tried to do so has no bearing on whether they are Constitutionally allowed to do so. In fact Libertarians have been pushing that very point for a number of years now, and it is now being pushed by members of the current Congress.
Also -- to forestall a possible argument that hasn't been made yet -- U.S. Supreme Court has ruled very clearly that the duration of a wrong has no affect on whether it is right or wrong. So the fact that they may have been doing it for 90 years has no bearing on whether it is right or proper.
Exactly. Thank you for making this point. It is what I hinted at above, but I didn't want to get into it at the time.
Give the information to Brian Krebs and have HIM call them. I guarantee you they will get off their asses and do something then.
Don't be so sure.
I had a similar problem with a bank back in 2000-2001. I called their customer service dept. and they put me in contact with the IT dept. I explained that their web banking portal was spewing private information all over the place. (I was quite alarmed, since I had noticed this when doing my own online banking.) They said they'd see to it right away.
A couple of weeks go by, it's still the same. Now, mind you, this was a MAJOR leak to anybody who knew about it. Arguably worse than OP's problem. So I called them again. I was assured that they were right on top of it.
After about another month went by, I went into the main branch of the bank, and SHOWED this to one of the managers. He seemed quite concerned. Another couple of months go by... nothing.
I finally called them up and said if they didn't fix the problem, I was going to the newspapers with it. It didn't faze them. I actually did take it to the local paper, and they weren't interested in the story. (Turned out later, they were best buds with this particular bank.)
Anyway, long story short: they did nothing. It took them a full year and a half to fix the problem. If I had been an unethical person, I could have emptied out the accounts of MANY people over that time.
It would be pretty darned simple for the HD manufacturers to provide a utility for checking the firmware against stock versions. In most cases a simple MD5 hash would probably do.
While MD5 is not the absolute most secure thing around, it is very difficult to make custom software fit an existing hash.
Does the FCC even have the authority to do that? Under what legal theory does an unelected federal regulatory commission have the authority to overrule state government laws on matters of state government interest? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see such laws go, as they're a major competition inhibitor, but how does the FCC have any authority in this?
Congress has clear authority to regulate interstate commerce, under the Constitution. Unlike some other things Congress has tried to regulate, it is very clear that the Internet is interstate commerce.
Having said that, the question that remains is whether Congress can delegate their lawmaking authority to some government bureaucracy. The correct answer to that question is probably no. But I know there are many people who would argue that point.
The last time the courts ruled on this, the ruling was that the FCC had ceded power and couldn't claim it back without the will of god. Or Congress, or something.
Not even close. The Supreme Court ruled that the FCC could not impose the rules it had tried to impose, BECAUSE it had not classified internet companies as Title II common carrier communications companies. So what the FCC did here, quite properly (if you accept that they have any authority to do it at all), was to re-classify internet providers as Title II common carriers.
There are many implications to this that people haven't been discussing much. It depends on the exact language of the rules when they go into effect. But the OLD rules for Title II common carriers stipulated that your communications can't be legally "intercepted" without a warrant. So deep packet inspection by ISPs is probably out the window.
Oh so according to you, it can't ever happen even in an area of many tens of thousands of acres, even if we wait years to find a few events.
That isn't what I said,
Trying to put words in my mouth is a dick thing to do. Knock it off.
It is a big fucking deal because there are long running threads of economic thought which oppose capitalism yet support free markets, and to conflate the two (and equivalently to conflate socialism with a command economy) creates a false dichotomy between capitalist free markets and statist socialism, ignoring and erasing the possibilities of non-capitalist free markets and non-statist socialism.
You're arguing against something I didn't even say. Why?
I'm not going to even bother dignifying the rest with an answer. I didn't see anybody dispute any of this so there is no point in arguing about it.
I want the definition to go back the way it was. That way, maybe we will finally get to name its companion "Goofy", rather than that dumbass Charon moniker.
Paypal has blocked other accounts for purely political reasons. It was a pretty big deal a few years ago.
Imagine a large pocket of methane suddenly bursting free under some pressure. It would only take a little spark to set it off. For example, throw some stones onto some other stones. Just two stones hitting each other would make a nice spark etc.. That would easily create some big holes.
It doesn't usually work that way. If it did, we'd have far more fires and explosions in homes that heat with gas.
When gas leaks, the vast majority of the gassed area has too high concentration of gas, and too low concentration of oxygen, to burn. Further out, it's too much air and too little gas. It is only at the "interface" between those two conditions that combustion is possible, and relatively speaking that's a miniscule volume compared to either the "air" volume or the "gas" volume at any given time.
In addition to that, if ignition does occur, usually only that small volume with the ideal mix burns, leaving (again) a volume of too-high concentration, and another too low. Explosions can alter that by chaotically mixing the gas with the surrounding air, and multiplying itself. But that seldom happens.
To sum it all up: gas fires and explosions are not very common, because conditions have to be nearly ideal at the precise spot where the ignition takes place. They happen on TV vastly more often than in real life.
On OS X, I highly recommend BaiBoard
It's simple, easy to use, and free.
What I don't get is how OP says life can get along without either carbon or oxygen, then mentions it living off of "hydrocarbons".
Uh... clue, OP: methane and benzene are organic molecules based on carbon.
Not to mention that the very same person who drew that 2 degree line admitted publicly that it was a completely arbitrary number. There's no science behind 2 degrees being any kind of bright line of destruction.
Japan didn't want to enter a war with the US.
Sorry, but this re-writing of history won't work here.
Japan very much wanted to go to war with the United States. Almost the sole standout was Admiral Yamamoto. His quote about awakening a "sleeping giant" has never been substantiated, but it matters very little because nobody listened to him.
Adam Smith wrote about free markets. Capitalism is something above and beyond a free market, first written about by Marx, who argued it was an inevitable consequence of free market and used that to criticize free markets.
You're arguing terminology over substance. Modern economists acknowledge that it was Smith who pretty solidly defined what we call "capitalism" as a socioeconomic structure. He didn't use the WORD "capitalism", but he defined everything we currently call free-market capitalism today.
Marx called it "captitalism". But we already knew what it was. Big fucking deal.
Why didn't you just write "You're wrong, fuckface"? - It's much clearer yet equally vacuous.
I didn't write that because the argument I did make has demonstrable history and facts on its side. I'm not in the habit of making vacuous comments, although we are all well aware your opinion has frequently been otherwise.
I don't claim to be perfect. I've made mistakes here and admitted them when they've been pointed out to me. But unless I made a recognizable blunder, I won't admit to being wrong unless someone actually shows that I am. Insults don't quite make it over that line.
If we're going to define capitalism as what was laid out by Adam Smith in On the Wealth of Nations (generally considered to be the founding document of capitalism), it certainly didn't praise corporate greed. Adam Smith takes a lot of time to bash on corporations, and how they need to be regulated. Not just that they need to be regulated, but exactly the manner in which they need to be.
Agreed. If we're discussing "Adam Smith free-market capitalism", Smith laid out the need for a solid body of antitrust law way back then. He recognized that free markets could lead toward monopoly, but wrote that this is where the government's role started: to enforce antitrust laws, which keep everybody on the same level playing field.
Since the government has hardly been enforcing the antitrust idea AT ALL, much less well, the logical conclusion is that this situation is not Adam Smith free-market capitalism. Which is what most people mean when they say "capitalism", regardless of technical details.
But it's very obvious that over the last couple of decades, government has thrown much of the antitrust baby out with the other regulatory bathwater, as it were. Not very long ago at all, a merger like Comcast and TWC would have been just laughed at, and never considered at all. For very good reasons.
BUT... I also want to say that GP here still missed the point. The person I was replying to implied that the problem was capitalism. My reply was that the very same problem (and I'll say here: even worse) occurs in other systems. Therefore the root problem can't be capitalism, per se. It must be something else. The obvious "something else" is cronyism. GP essentially just said "bullshit" while making no argument of his own.
Actually, it has to do with Franchise agreements between _______ cable and the local municipalities, which is NOT Capitalism, but some bad version of utility.
That's certainly part of the problem.
I'm all for free market. But unfortunately, we haven't had a competitive market for broadband on ANY level, not just the local level, for some time now. It might have started out locally, but that was a long time ago. The time to fix the local problem was then.
Now it's a problem throughout the country, with a small handful of companies controlling 80% of the United States. That's not a local problem anymore.
It's monopoly capitalism. Not all capitalism is free-market capitalism. Technically they aren't lying.
No, I stick by what I said above. GP blamed the problem on capitalism. But the very same problem occurs in other socioeconomic systems. Therefore it isn't caused by capitalism. The situation may be a variant of capitalism, but that's a different argument.
fuck capitalism.
It has nothing to do with capitalism. It has everything to do with unregulated corporate greed. They are NOT the same things. The same kind of greed was seen very prominently in countries that called themselves Socialist and even Communist. So don't blame "capitalism" for it. It's cronyism, plain and simple.
And this is almost laughably wrong:
The rules, which have not yet been released, are opposed by cable and telephone companies that fear it will curb Internet growth and stifle payback on network investment.
I call BS. They don't "fear" it will do anything of the kind. What they fear is that it will put a stop to their monopolistic control, and monopolistic prices, and end their ability to pocket tax money given them for infrastructure.
I mean this literally: you can hardly believe a word they say anymore.
That reading would seem to permit the Feds to override any and all State laws against political subdivisions doing anything.
Why?
The Constitution very clearly gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce. And it is pretty much indisputable that the Internet involves interstate commerce.
I, for one, think Congress has tried to stretch the "interstate commerce" excuse way too far, in order to regulate many things that are not directly involved with interstate commerce. Like growing marijuana.
But the internet is not one of those things.
Were female models more comfortable with you than they would be with a male photographer?
I didn't hang with other photographers, and the models I worked with were not already-known professionals, so I don't have any way to make a comparison.
This is no different that what submariners experience - with no natural light, they move to an 18 hour day (6 on 12 off). Contrast this to driving across the ocean in a ship and traversing the various time zone.
Also, experiments done decades ago, in caves with no day-night cycle, led to longer awake cycles much like those. So I really don't see what the problem is here.
Naturally, it takes time to adjust. Shift-work studies have shown that it takes the body AT LEAST 30 days to fully adjust to a new schedule, some people as long as 60. Interrupt it before then and you end up with problems.
Yep, you see this all the time in the iOS development community too. People coding my sticking together 100 slightly incompatible 3rd party libraries, and writing a bunch of glue code. Then hitting problems and responding to help solving them with "we can't do that, we're required to do it this way because the 3rd party library does it that way".
Exactly. I don't mind including a good tool that does its job well and leaves everything else alone. But I've run across at least 2 very sad "syndromes" that add-ons sometimes cause:
The first syndrome is represented by libraries that take over everything and unnecessarily restrict your otherwise legitimate actions, because they ASSUME everything will be done with or through them. 2 great examples come to mind from the Ruby world: Formtastic, and Devise.
I dumped Formtastic because it insisted on generating its own <ul> for the form, and <li> tags for all the elements, which prevented you from laying out your forms your own way. Trying to wrap elements in named or classed <div>s so you could do your own layout resulted in invalid HTML. Maybe Formtastic has improved since then, I don't know. I discussed this problem with the author, and his response was "Why would you want to do that?" Which just illustrates my point.
Devise is way too intrusive and makes too many assumptions. Besides being based around unproven Bcrypt (which has never been fully security audited), it tries to force you to do everything else its way, too. It may be "customizable", but in my experience that's far more trouble than it's worth. My opinion is that most people who use Devise do so because they don't understand how to do it themselves.
The second syndrome is "copy and paste development". This irritates me to no end. "Why don't we just use X? It already does that." "Well, because it's like shooting an ant with a cannon. A cannon that also wants to wash your dishes."
The right tool for the right job. Often, especially for small jobs, it's vastly preferable to roll your own tools, and do it your way.
Actually this is probably the best answer. I like this better than my own answer of using a serial link.
I even have such an adapter, and didn't think of it.