I have felt from the time it came out that GPL 3.0 was a step too far. With any attempt to write a legally binding document (whether a license like the GPL or a law) that applies to people you have never met you have to make a choice between one of two options. You can either write it so that no one can ever abuse it, or you can write it so that it is flexible and can be applied in innovative ways to solve problems that it never occurred to you might be connected to it somehow. If you do the first one, the document will, at best, be unusable in situations that are outside of what you considered possible when you wrote it, but more likely will actually restrain innovation in any area where your document applies. GPL 3.0 does this.
The FEC does not have the legal authority to "make PACs and SuperPACs identify their donation sources" or they would already be doing so. Just because they are called the Federal Election Commission does not mean they can unilaterally impose whatever regulation they wish on election related happenings. They operate under two constraints. First, they only have whatever authority Congress has delegated to them. Second, that authority must be one which Congress both Constitutionally has and which it is allowed to delegate.
Charles Babbage is the ultimate example of "The perfect is the enemy of the good." He was so caught up in what he could do better with the Analytical Engine that he did not fill the orders for the Difference Engine. If he had set some people up making Difference Engines rather than spending the money he was given to build a Difference Engine to design the Analytical Engine, he might have been able to get a steady enough flow of money to fund building and designing variations on the Analytical Engine. The question of course is, if he had done that, would he have lived long enough to get any work done on the Analytical Engine at all?
Exactly. The Black-Scholes formula (and most other formulas which attempt to predict market behavior) are structured on the theory that people make decisions regarding buying and selling based on factors primarily concerned with the value of the financial instrument being traded vs the value of other financial instruments that are available to the buyer and seller. The problem with the formula happens when people start to make decisions regarding the market on the basis of the formula rather than their perception of the value of various financial instruments available to them. As soon as the number of traders relying on the formula exceeds some percentage (I do not know what that percentage is) the formula stops accurately predicting the market. It will continue to appear to be predicting the market for a short period of time after this happens, but it will be inflating a bubble that will inevitably burst when someone notices that the pricing of certain financial instruments is out of sync with their relative value to other financial instruments.
The Incas, the Khmer who built Angkor Wat and Egypt were all civilizations that fell to foreign conquest. None of them fell because their population exceeded their capacity to produce food. The fact is that people have been predicting that the human population is rapidly approaching the point where the population will exceed our capacity to feed it since at least the 1700s and there is no reason to believe that those proclaiming that today are any more accurate than those who proclaimed it in the 1700s.
The research has been done and the reason that locally grown tomatoes taste better is because they are locally grown and thus are picked when they are riper and closer to their flavor peak. It makes no difference if they are "organically" grown or not. The key is that they are grown locally and picked at the peak of ripeness rather than picked some distance away and allowed to "ripen" while being shipped.
The OP was correct. The point of doing organic farming is so that you can charge more for your crops. This makes farming in some areas feasible. In the area I live in, property values are high enough that most conventional farming is not economically viable*. People who wish to take up farming in this area generally need to take up organic farming in order to be able to sell their crops for a sufficient premium in order to pay their bills. The reason people buy organically grown food at that premium price is because they think that it is safer.
*There are exceptions to this. However, they are all family owned farms that have been in the family for several generations and have been granted special, reduced property tax rates on the promise that they will remain farms, or some other "open space" usage. The tax penalty for taking the property tax break and then later developing the land in ways that take away its "open space" designation is high enough to be a major deterrent to doing so.
The link between certain, specific pesticides and CCD appears to be in the form of pesticides in High Fructose Corn Syrup that many bee keepers feed their bees in the late winter in order to have the colony enter spring stronger than it would naturally. This means that the studies indicate that the solution to CCD is for the beekeepers to change their practices, not for those particular pesticides to be banned.
It stands to reason that any increase in food production will lead to an increase in the total human population,
Which explains why the U.S. population growth rate has increased as the U.S. has increased the amount of food it produces per acre....wait, no, that is not what happened. As the amount of food produced per acre in the U.S. has increased, the rate of population growth has decreased (to the point where immigration, and the children of first generation immigrants, is the only reason that the U.S. population is growing). The fact is that there is no correlation between amount of food produced in a country and population growth. There is however a correlation between per capita income and population growth. As a country's per capita income increases, its rate of population growth decreases.
Was Jonathan Pollard a traitor? The "whistleblowers" in the article are no less traitors to the Vatican than Jonathan Pollard was to the U.S. and were perhaps more rightly called traitors than Pollard (I have heard people argue that Pollard was not a traitor, but have never cared enough to follow their arguments closely enough to see if they have merit). Actually, that may not be true, some of these whistleblowers may be merely guilty of espionage (as some of them may owe a primary loyalty to some government other than that of the Vatican).
You do realize that the Vatican is a sovereign state, right? The Vatican has the right to structure their reporting structure any way they want. It is not a democracy. In a democracy, the government is theoretically answerable to the people and therefore the people have a claim to being informed by whistleblowers as to inappropriate behavior on the part of government officials (and therefore whistleblower protections should exist to some degree in a democracy). The Vatican on the other hand is not in anyway a democracy. The various officials of the Vatican government are only theoretically answerable up the chain of command to the Pope, who is, theoretically, answerable to no power on earth. Someone in the Vatican government who reports inappropriate behavior to someone outside of the Vatican government hierarchy is not a "whistleblower", as, theoretically, there is no one outside of the Vatican government to blow the whistle to, they are, instead, a traitor (I am not sure if that is the correct word from the perspective of Vatican governance, but if it isn't, I am not sure what is). They have betrayed their commitments as a member of that organization (similar to someone who had reported such actions by a government official of the USSR to a western government).
To be fair, the banks do not allow you to opt in to security features or opt-out of security liabilities.
Really? Your bank insists that you do online banking? That you conduct money transfers over the Internet? They do not allow you to go down to a bank location to conduct your banking business? Those are all options available to you and if you were to follow them would allow you to opt out of many security liabilities. I am pretty confident that if you never conduct any banking transactions online the courts would find the bank liable if someone hacked into your account and took your money.
Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin. I am confident that the Supreme Court would include Bitcoins under "foreign coin".
The ability of the U.S. government to put your ass in jail if you do not pay your debt to them in dollars. For everybody outside of the U.S., the value of the dollar is backed up by two things. First, the large market of those living in the U.S. who will accept dollars for goods or services in order to have dollars to pay their taxes. Second, the willingness of the U.S. to use its military to force people in other countries to trade with the U.S. (look up Admiral Perry and Japan). The willingness of the U.S. government to do so is less than it was at one time, but its ability to do so is greater than it was 50 years ago.
Yes it does. If one does a little bit of research, one discovers that the Constitution gives Congress the power to "coin money". Congress delegated this power to the Federal Reserve through duly passed Acts of Congress. In the context of the comment you were replying to, "charter" does not refer to a single specific document, but instead refers to the various acts of law and tradition that constructed the 'central authorities' that are currently the arbiters of national currencies in various countries. It is clear currently that the U.S. government will act to protect the Federal Reserve's monopoly over the currency that is used in the U.S. when it feels that it is threatened (see the case against "Liberty Dollars").
When discussing colleges, the term "legacy" generally refers to kids who got special consideration for admission because one or both of their parents are alumni of that particular school.
Not good liberals. All good liberals know that only government officials (and the bodyguards of famous, wealthy people) should be allowed to possess guns.
Seems like a good idea, except when the safety of a minor or incompetent adult is involved.
The thing about those situations is that, unless something is seriously screwed up, the telecom records related to those individuals will be in the name of their legal guardian. Their legal guardian can request that information from the telecoms in conjunction with law enforcement thus eliminating the need for a warrant, just as those legal guardians could grant law enforcement permission to search the room of those individuals.
I think your regulation is a bit extreme, but the idea of a single regulation like that with rather severe penalties is the right idea.
Re:They have lost all trust, but they retain distr
on
In Nothing We Trust
·
· Score: 1
What about your local politicians? What about your state legislator? What about your Representative and your Senator? If you want to change things it requires a couple of things. You need to get involved in local politics and know who your local and state representatives are. You need to get involved in the local Party activities (choose one) including the primaries. You need to get your friends and neighbors active in the same things. Most of all, you need patience. It didn't get this way in one election cycle. It isn't going to get fixed in one election cycle.
We as a nation did not decide that the only option was to do it nationally. Those who wanted the government to control people's healthcare decided to do it at a national level because they wanted the power that went along with doing it that way. I would have much less problem with those who favor government healthcare if they were doing it on a state by state basis.
I will repeat that the reason that they are doing it the way they are is because their goals are not the ones that they claim. If they were to do it on a state by state basis, it would quickly become apparent that the methods they are attempting to implement do not accomplish the things that they claim are their goals (lowering cost, improving access).
Slashdot Mirror
I propose we call these "Attractive and Successful Markets of Alternative Economy"
What's wrong with calling it a black market? Or are you a racist?
I have felt from the time it came out that GPL 3.0 was a step too far. With any attempt to write a legally binding document (whether a license like the GPL or a law) that applies to people you have never met you have to make a choice between one of two options. You can either write it so that no one can ever abuse it, or you can write it so that it is flexible and can be applied in innovative ways to solve problems that it never occurred to you might be connected to it somehow. If you do the first one, the document will, at best, be unusable in situations that are outside of what you considered possible when you wrote it, but more likely will actually restrain innovation in any area where your document applies. GPL 3.0 does this.
So, you have never seen MSNBC?
The FEC does not have the legal authority to "make PACs and SuperPACs identify their donation sources" or they would already be doing so. Just because they are called the Federal Election Commission does not mean they can unilaterally impose whatever regulation they wish on election related happenings. They operate under two constraints. First, they only have whatever authority Congress has delegated to them. Second, that authority must be one which Congress both Constitutionally has and which it is allowed to delegate.
Charles Babbage is the ultimate example of "The perfect is the enemy of the good." He was so caught up in what he could do better with the Analytical Engine that he did not fill the orders for the Difference Engine. If he had set some people up making Difference Engines rather than spending the money he was given to build a Difference Engine to design the Analytical Engine, he might have been able to get a steady enough flow of money to fund building and designing variations on the Analytical Engine. The question of course is, if he had done that, would he have lived long enough to get any work done on the Analytical Engine at all?
Exactly. The Black-Scholes formula (and most other formulas which attempt to predict market behavior) are structured on the theory that people make decisions regarding buying and selling based on factors primarily concerned with the value of the financial instrument being traded vs the value of other financial instruments that are available to the buyer and seller. The problem with the formula happens when people start to make decisions regarding the market on the basis of the formula rather than their perception of the value of various financial instruments available to them. As soon as the number of traders relying on the formula exceeds some percentage (I do not know what that percentage is) the formula stops accurately predicting the market. It will continue to appear to be predicting the market for a short period of time after this happens, but it will be inflating a bubble that will inevitably burst when someone notices that the pricing of certain financial instruments is out of sync with their relative value to other financial instruments.
Everything I have been able to find suggests that whether or not grass-fed meat tastes better is a matter of personal preference.
The Incas, the Khmer who built Angkor Wat and Egypt were all civilizations that fell to foreign conquest. None of them fell because their population exceeded their capacity to produce food. The fact is that people have been predicting that the human population is rapidly approaching the point where the population will exceed our capacity to feed it since at least the 1700s and there is no reason to believe that those proclaiming that today are any more accurate than those who proclaimed it in the 1700s.
The research has been done and the reason that locally grown tomatoes taste better is because they are locally grown and thus are picked when they are riper and closer to their flavor peak. It makes no difference if they are "organically" grown or not. The key is that they are grown locally and picked at the peak of ripeness rather than picked some distance away and allowed to "ripen" while being shipped.
The OP was correct. The point of doing organic farming is so that you can charge more for your crops. This makes farming in some areas feasible. In the area I live in, property values are high enough that most conventional farming is not economically viable*. People who wish to take up farming in this area generally need to take up organic farming in order to be able to sell their crops for a sufficient premium in order to pay their bills. The reason people buy organically grown food at that premium price is because they think that it is safer.
*There are exceptions to this. However, they are all family owned farms that have been in the family for several generations and have been granted special, reduced property tax rates on the promise that they will remain farms, or some other "open space" usage. The tax penalty for taking the property tax break and then later developing the land in ways that take away its "open space" designation is high enough to be a major deterrent to doing so.
The link between certain, specific pesticides and CCD appears to be in the form of pesticides in High Fructose Corn Syrup that many bee keepers feed their bees in the late winter in order to have the colony enter spring stronger than it would naturally. This means that the studies indicate that the solution to CCD is for the beekeepers to change their practices, not for those particular pesticides to be banned.
It stands to reason that any increase in food production will lead to an increase in the total human population,
Which explains why the U.S. population growth rate has increased as the U.S. has increased the amount of food it produces per acre....wait, no, that is not what happened. As the amount of food produced per acre in the U.S. has increased, the rate of population growth has decreased (to the point where immigration, and the children of first generation immigrants, is the only reason that the U.S. population is growing). The fact is that there is no correlation between amount of food produced in a country and population growth. There is however a correlation between per capita income and population growth. As a country's per capita income increases, its rate of population growth decreases.
Was Jonathan Pollard a traitor? The "whistleblowers" in the article are no less traitors to the Vatican than Jonathan Pollard was to the U.S. and were perhaps more rightly called traitors than Pollard (I have heard people argue that Pollard was not a traitor, but have never cared enough to follow their arguments closely enough to see if they have merit). Actually, that may not be true, some of these whistleblowers may be merely guilty of espionage (as some of them may owe a primary loyalty to some government other than that of the Vatican).
You do realize that the Vatican is a sovereign state, right? The Vatican has the right to structure their reporting structure any way they want. It is not a democracy. In a democracy, the government is theoretically answerable to the people and therefore the people have a claim to being informed by whistleblowers as to inappropriate behavior on the part of government officials (and therefore whistleblower protections should exist to some degree in a democracy). The Vatican on the other hand is not in anyway a democracy. The various officials of the Vatican government are only theoretically answerable up the chain of command to the Pope, who is, theoretically, answerable to no power on earth. Someone in the Vatican government who reports inappropriate behavior to someone outside of the Vatican government hierarchy is not a "whistleblower", as, theoretically, there is no one outside of the Vatican government to blow the whistle to, they are, instead, a traitor (I am not sure if that is the correct word from the perspective of Vatican governance, but if it isn't, I am not sure what is). They have betrayed their commitments as a member of that organization (similar to someone who had reported such actions by a government official of the USSR to a western government).
To be fair, the banks do not allow you to opt in to security features or opt-out of security liabilities.
Really? Your bank insists that you do online banking? That you conduct money transfers over the Internet? They do not allow you to go down to a bank location to conduct your banking business? Those are all options available to you and if you were to follow them would allow you to opt out of many security liabilities. I am pretty confident that if you never conduct any banking transactions online the courts would find the bank liable if someone hacked into your account and took your money.
Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin. I am confident that the Supreme Court would include Bitcoins under "foreign coin".
What value are dollars backed by?
The ability of the U.S. government to put your ass in jail if you do not pay your debt to them in dollars. For everybody outside of the U.S., the value of the dollar is backed up by two things. First, the large market of those living in the U.S. who will accept dollars for goods or services in order to have dollars to pay their taxes. Second, the willingness of the U.S. to use its military to force people in other countries to trade with the U.S. (look up Admiral Perry and Japan). The willingness of the U.S. government to do so is less than it was at one time, but its ability to do so is greater than it was 50 years ago.
Yes it does. If one does a little bit of research, one discovers that the Constitution gives Congress the power to "coin money". Congress delegated this power to the Federal Reserve through duly passed Acts of Congress. In the context of the comment you were replying to, "charter" does not refer to a single specific document, but instead refers to the various acts of law and tradition that constructed the 'central authorities' that are currently the arbiters of national currencies in various countries. It is clear currently that the U.S. government will act to protect the Federal Reserve's monopoly over the currency that is used in the U.S. when it feels that it is threatened (see the case against "Liberty Dollars").
When discussing colleges, the term "legacy" generally refers to kids who got special consideration for admission because one or both of their parents are alumni of that particular school.
Why use Romney as an example of "legacy kids"? Guess what Romney's father did not go to Harvard, but Obama's did. Obama is the "legacy kid".
Liberals have guns, too.
Not good liberals. All good liberals know that only government officials (and the bodyguards of famous, wealthy people) should be allowed to possess guns.
Seems like a good idea, except when the safety of a minor or incompetent adult is involved.
The thing about those situations is that, unless something is seriously screwed up, the telecom records related to those individuals will be in the name of their legal guardian. Their legal guardian can request that information from the telecoms in conjunction with law enforcement thus eliminating the need for a warrant, just as those legal guardians could grant law enforcement permission to search the room of those individuals.
I think your regulation is a bit extreme, but the idea of a single regulation like that with rather severe penalties is the right idea.
What about your local politicians? What about your state legislator? What about your Representative and your Senator? If you want to change things it requires a couple of things. You need to get involved in local politics and know who your local and state representatives are. You need to get involved in the local Party activities (choose one) including the primaries. You need to get your friends and neighbors active in the same things. Most of all, you need patience. It didn't get this way in one election cycle. It isn't going to get fixed in one election cycle.
We as a nation did not decide that the only option was to do it nationally. Those who wanted the government to control people's healthcare decided to do it at a national level because they wanted the power that went along with doing it that way. I would have much less problem with those who favor government healthcare if they were doing it on a state by state basis.
I will repeat that the reason that they are doing it the way they are is because their goals are not the ones that they claim. If they were to do it on a state by state basis, it would quickly become apparent that the methods they are attempting to implement do not accomplish the things that they claim are their goals (lowering cost, improving access).