You would want research you pay for to be done at the fastest and most effective way possible, so as to maximize your ROI.
Some people believe capitalistic-style efficency is the highest goal when spending money. Other people (myself included) want government funds to not to create undue externalities. One example of such an externality is destorying a scientist's health/long term affects.
I would heartlessly argue that someone who's rushed to the ER because they were partying too hard and spending all their money on drugs instead of health insurance shouldn't be treated with the bill paid by society's safety net the same way as, say, a homeless person hit by a car should be treated.
There are two reasons why ER care is financially backed by the government. The first is a moral, no one should be allowed to die just because they are down on their luck. In that sense, your distinction is valid.
But the second is pragmatic and merges the two cases. Time is of the essence in the ER. Confirming insurance or bank account info would require either a) a lot of time b) a scary big brother database. Both seem worse costs than the status quo if this is the only concern.
However, if you believe in the first reason (as you seem to), then they have to determine not only if you can pay, but if you cannot, why. That implies either a lot more time or a much scarier big brother database in those instances.
Plausible deniability requires plausibility; DRM that you control is not plausible. Also, even if it met that standard, it's not enough. You have to demonstrate that it is more likely that you are not going to distribute it than that you are. Now, if the quality was 320x240, in B&W at 6 FPS, that's an argument. But if the quality is up-to-snuff, you lose.
Great, but who puts either Vista or XP on a proliant server?
Right, I use Win98. The occassionally having to reboot (every 28 days or so) is made up for by the fact that I know I won't every get bothered with 'updates' again.
What exactly is it that is so great about C++ for learning fundamentals that you dont get in java? The only thing I can think of is understanding pointers and how memory is laid out. But that really falls outside the scope of algorithms and data structures which is what intro level CS is really all about.
To my mind, understanding pointers -> understanding how memory is laid out -> understanding structures. You don't start kids learning algebra just because they can use a calculator for addition thru division.
I thought you could use any USB drive to install mass storage drivers. It's been a while since I installed XP, but I remember that the installer saw my USB key.
No, it's in the enumerated powers of Congress. As I mentioned, reading the constitution helps you discuss it.
I assume you mean regulate commerce. And the authority is limited to regulating interstate commerce.
Right, bad auto-correcting spellcheck fixed it to regular instead of regulate. But that is what I meant. And interstate commerce pretty much is affected by all commerce now. After all, no man is an island, etc. And if interstate commerce is affected by it, necessary and proper pulls in under their power.
but only authority to maintain a navy has been spelled out
Actually, agains with the enumerated powers, the Congress can maintain an army indefinately. It just cannot maintain an army more than two years hence. Therefore, Congress has to stay involved or the Army disbands. This concept is to prevent, for example, a situation where Congress cannot meet for a few years as a dictator takes over.
Some would argue that the constitution does not grant this authority because the amendment was technically never passed. A strict interpretation of the wording all around leads one to the conclusion that a couple states did not actually pass the amendment, putting the ratification count below the minimum.
Considering 7/8ths of the states at the time ratified the amendment, therefore making any few of them irrelevent, and every court has thrown those arugments out for the last 95 years as frivolous, I think I'm on safe ground.
With regards to universal health care, Massachussets already has it, for your informatio
Mass. increased the number of people covered by private insurance. BTW, it's still not universal, as only 350k of the 600k unemployeed have gotten insurance so far. However, that is not what I meant. I meant, the free doctors kind of universal, not helping people to afford insurance.
I am not the AC, but I thought he made good points. To respond to you:
Interesting points all, but what part of the constitution (or what other document we should be considering) grants the Federal government the authority to do much of anything besides defense?
You should really read the constitution at some point. Here is a list of things the federal government may explicitly do:
Collect taxes and duties
Provide for the common defense
Provide for the general welfare
Borrow money
Regular commerce
Naturalize citizens
Make bankrupcy law
Coin money (and punish counterfiters) (Knox v. Lee legalizes paper money, Perry v. US legalizes paper money not backed by gold)
Sets standards for weights and measures
Establish post offices and roads for their use (the roads do not have to be exclusively for the postal service)
Establish patent and copyright law
Create federal courts (the congress can make as many courts as they want, as long as the supreme court is at the top).
Uphold international and maritime law
Declare war
Grant letters of marque
Raise an army (and a navy)
Regulate the conduct of the military personal
Create internal regulations for the federal government
Call up the national guard, and train/fund/controlling it.
Control the district and federal lands throughout the US
Anything that is necessary and proper for any other power to be used.
Negotiate treaties ( and apply these treaties as law of the land.)
Guarantee of republican (system of government, not politial party) government to each state
Enforce equality among the states, including extradition, full faith and credit, and equality based on state citizenship.
Create new states
Supremecy in matters of law
Ensure all citizens receive equal protection under the law
Levy an income tax
I'm sure I missed a few. However, the 'general welfare' and 'necessary and proper' clauses combined to, in Hamilton's view, provide elasticity to the federal government. The general welfare lets the government collect tax money to be used for the general welfare. The interstate commerce clause is allows for a lot to justify expansion too. The fourteenth amendment expands the federal governments role to ensuring equality under the law.
As for why the states shouldn't do it, well, there are lots of interstate operability clauses that might make it difficult. For instance, I could fly to New York if it had the best universal health care, and, because they cannot treat me different from a New Yorker, get treatment gratis. Then go back to my state. Hell, my state might even buy me the ticket.
And administrative overhead isn't the only or necessarily the best measure of a program's value
Certainly not, otherwise the 'burn your money' would be the best retirement program (negative admin costs, as it saves heating costs during the winter.) But it is a good defense when someone claims that government programs are always wasteful.
Well, I agree that penalties should adjust automatically for company size (for instance, frame them in percents of gross income.) But I thought, for the most part, the penalities were autoadjusting. If by no other way, then a large factory will get more instances of OSHA violations than small ones, if the violations per sq. ft. are the same.
And the law says you can't advertise; so it sounds like you can still discriminate, you just can't put it into print. Unless I'm reading wrong.
Yes, you can still discriminate if there are less than four rental units (rooms/beds/whatever) and you are living in one of them. That's precisely to allow the "I should be able to live with whoever I choose" attitude. However, you cannot when acting as a landlord for an apartment complex/as a landlord when you don't live there/making housing loans/etc.
There is no advertising of discrimination allowed (except for gender when you share space). I don't know why that's the case, but I can see three arguments:
You cannot discriminate against people, but you can veto anyone you aren't comfortable with. If you happen to be a racist and never comfortable with any black roommate, the government cannot say boo, but you cannot say you are uncomfortable with a hypothetical black roommate.
If people see your ad, they might think that such discrimination is okay, leading to inadvertent violations of the law.
I can see the harms associated with advertising that fact in print. The way it could make certain racial/religious/etc. groups feel ghettoised, or the way it could make lots of people uncomfortable.
The companies also expect adults to cotton to the idea of buying two laptops a lightweight one just for Web browsing on the go and the full-power machine for the home or office. But industry executives acknowledge that the market is untested and that no one knows what demand will be once the machines are deployed widely.
I already do this. In fact, I have three. A full-power machine for the home, a full-power machine for the office, and one for web browsing on the go. Although why 2/3 of those wouldn't be desktops confuses and scares me. I can get two desktops for less than one laptop, with better specs. And then have a laptop to lug around.
Well, the number isn't wrong, but the context is. TFA says that Intel (not HP) estimates 50 million subnotebooks will be sold by 2011. Not just the Intel/HP branded ones, and not just to children. The entire market will be that large.
Roommates.com isn't offering you housing; its a networking site, no different than putting an ad for a roommate in the paper.
Exactly. You cannot put an ad in a paper saying "only hot black chicks can be my roommate". You can, legally, only allow hot black chicks to be your roommate (so long as there are 4 or less rental spaces, and you live in one of them). But the advertising cannot state this caveat.
The only exception seems to be if you share part of an apartment (including a kitchen or bathroom), you can specify gender. Well, also nondsicriminatory private club housing and retirement homes as well.
Intestingly, sexuality does not seem to be a prohibited manner of discrimination.
If I choose to take on a roommate, why should HAVE to consider on that is gay, if that would make me uncomfortable?
The answer is, I believe you are allowed to discriminate when finding a roommate ( IANAL, ask one). However, a broker/housing site is not allowed to discriminate on your behalf.
The Fair Housing Act covers most housing. In some circumstances, the Act exempts owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single-family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker, and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members.
Source: hud.gov
So, I think that first example applies, even though you are not the owner. Again, IANAL.
. Yet goverment seems to put a Small 5 man operation in the same boat legially as a 100,000 man operation.
This statement is false, demonstrably so. It's a straw man. For instance, the cut-off point before you have to worry about discrimination lawsuits in hiring is, I believe, 11 employees. There are numerous governemnt advantages given to companies based on having a small workforce. There are different standards based on revenue and corporation type as well.
This meme is just like the 'family farm' in estate tax debates. No family farm has been lost in the past 50 years because of the estate tax.
What seems like a "big win for consumers" usually chills business including (or especially) the small business the kind without on-staff lawyers and lobbyists.
You're absolutely correct. Poor small companies like Google and the parent company of AdultFriendFinder.com cannot defend themselves against the big, mean, government.
Slashdot Mirror
Some people believe capitalistic-style efficency is the highest goal when spending money. Other people (myself included) want government funds to not to create undue externalities. One example of such an externality is destorying a scientist's health/long term affects.
There are two reasons why ER care is financially backed by the government. The first is a moral, no one should be allowed to die just because they are down on their luck. In that sense, your distinction is valid.
But the second is pragmatic and merges the two cases. Time is of the essence in the ER. Confirming insurance or bank account info would require either a) a lot of time b) a scary big brother database. Both seem worse costs than the status quo if this is the only concern.
However, if you believe in the first reason (as you seem to), then they have to determine not only if you can pay, but if you cannot, why. That implies either a lot more time or a much scarier big brother database in those instances.
Plausible deniability requires plausibility; DRM that you control is not plausible. Also, even if it met that standard, it's not enough. You have to demonstrate that it is more likely that you are not going to distribute it than that you are. Now, if the quality was 320x240, in B&W at 6 FPS, that's an argument. But if the quality is up-to-snuff, you lose.
Slashdot IDs still only have 5 digits. What, am I the only one who looks at numbers in the proper sexagesimal format?
While I thought the products listed at sparkfun were interesting, it neither is it an article, nor does it add to the actual article.
If I was more clever, I would find a good pun in that the only thing it did 'add' was an 'ad'.
They'll call bullshit. They'll say that it's more likely that you plan on distributing it. And convince a jury of that. And that's game over for you.
Based on my observations, no one has gotten within 20 feet of a TSA agent with one on their person.
And when I make VoIP calls using a microphone..?
Right, I use Win98. The occassionally having to reboot (every 28 days or so) is made up for by the fact that I know I won't every get bothered with 'updates' again.
I don't want 800 competing companies running wires outside. I want one company, regulated by the government.
To my mind, understanding pointers -> understanding how memory is laid out -> understanding structures. You don't start kids learning algebra just because they can use a calculator for addition thru division.
I thought you could use any USB drive to install mass storage drivers. It's been a while since I installed XP, but I remember that the installer saw my USB key.
And if it was self-sustaining, we could probably find a way to harness all that power to run my really big TV.
No, it's in the enumerated powers of Congress. As I mentioned, reading the constitution helps you discuss it.
Right, bad auto-correcting spellcheck fixed it to regular instead of regulate. But that is what I meant. And interstate commerce pretty much is affected by all commerce now. After all, no man is an island, etc. And if interstate commerce is affected by it, necessary and proper pulls in under their power.
Actually, agains with the enumerated powers, the Congress can maintain an army indefinately. It just cannot maintain an army more than two years hence. Therefore, Congress has to stay involved or the Army disbands. This concept is to prevent, for example, a situation where Congress cannot meet for a few years as a dictator takes over.
Considering 7/8ths of the states at the time ratified the amendment, therefore making any few of them irrelevent, and every court has thrown those arugments out for the last 95 years as frivolous, I think I'm on safe ground.
Mass. increased the number of people covered by private insurance. BTW, it's still not universal, as only 350k of the 600k unemployeed have gotten insurance so far. However, that is not what I meant. I meant, the free doctors kind of universal, not helping people to afford insurance.
I am not the AC, but I thought he made good points. To respond to you:
You should really read the constitution at some point. Here is a list of things the federal government may explicitly do:
I'm sure I missed a few. However, the 'general welfare' and 'necessary and proper' clauses combined to, in Hamilton's view, provide elasticity to the federal government. The general welfare lets the government collect tax money to be used for the general welfare. The interstate commerce clause is allows for a lot to justify expansion too. The fourteenth amendment expands the federal governments role to ensuring equality under the law.
As for why the states shouldn't do it, well, there are lots of interstate operability clauses that might make it difficult. For instance, I could fly to New York if it had the best universal health care, and, because they cannot treat me different from a New Yorker, get treatment gratis. Then go back to my state. Hell, my state might even buy me the ticket.
Certainly not, otherwise the 'burn your money' would be the best retirement program (negative admin costs, as it saves heating costs during the winter.) But it is a good defense when someone claims that government programs are always wasteful.
Well, I agree that penalties should adjust automatically for company size (for instance, frame them in percents of gross income.) But I thought, for the most part, the penalities were autoadjusting. If by no other way, then a large factory will get more instances of OSHA violations than small ones, if the violations per sq. ft. are the same.
Yes, you can still discriminate if there are less than four rental units (rooms/beds/whatever) and you are living in one of them. That's precisely to allow the "I should be able to live with whoever I choose" attitude. However, you cannot when acting as a landlord for an apartment complex/as a landlord when you don't live there/making housing loans/etc.
There is no advertising of discrimination allowed (except for gender when you share space). I don't know why that's the case, but I can see three arguments:
FTFA:
I already do this. In fact, I have three. A full-power machine for the home, a full-power machine for the office, and one for web browsing on the go. Although why 2/3 of those wouldn't be desktops confuses and scares me. I can get two desktops for less than one laptop, with better specs. And then have a laptop to lug around.
Well, the number isn't wrong, but the context is. TFA says that Intel (not HP) estimates 50 million subnotebooks will be sold by 2011. Not just the Intel/HP branded ones, and not just to children. The entire market will be that large.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Exactly. You cannot put an ad in a paper saying "only hot black chicks can be my roommate". You can, legally, only allow hot black chicks to be your roommate (so long as there are 4 or less rental spaces, and you live in one of them). But the advertising cannot state this caveat.
The only exception seems to be if you share part of an apartment (including a kitchen or bathroom), you can specify gender. Well, also nondsicriminatory private club housing and retirement homes as well.
Intestingly, sexuality does not seem to be a prohibited manner of discrimination.
IANAL, I cribbed off the internet.
Google paid them to go to a specific lat/long. That location happens to be pricate property. So, yes, yes they did.
The answer is, I believe you are allowed to discriminate when finding a roommate ( IANAL, ask one). However, a broker/housing site is not allowed to discriminate on your behalf.
So, I think that first example applies, even though you are not the owner. Again, IANAL.
This statement is false, demonstrably so. It's a straw man. For instance, the cut-off point before you have to worry about discrimination lawsuits in hiring is, I believe, 11 employees. There are numerous governemnt advantages given to companies based on having a small workforce. There are different standards based on revenue and corporation type as well.
This meme is just like the 'family farm' in estate tax debates. No family farm has been lost in the past 50 years because of the estate tax.
You're absolutely correct. Poor small companies like Google and the parent company of AdultFriendFinder.com cannot defend themselves against the big, mean, government.