$X is the GDP, $Y is federal spending. No matter where $X and $Y start, eventually $Y overtakes $X
As someone else pointed out, $X is the sum of many things plus $Y, so no matter how much $Y grows it will never exceed $X.
The Democrats and Republicans in congress are putting forth proposals to save 1-2 trillion dollars over the next decade which would continue to leave us with massive deficits over the next ten years. We would be a lot closer to balancing the budget if we would pull the military out of Iraq and Afgananistan, end the Bush tax cuts, and stop bailing out big companies.
I think the lower/broader tax plan is a great idea, and the balanced budget amendment is totally unworkable. Still, they are doing exactly what they said they'd do when elected.
A balanced budget amendment passed the House of Representatives and nearly passed the Senate in 1996. Instead of working with an amendment that nearly passed, they added numerous severe restrictions knowing full-well their radicalized version stood no chance of passing. That is not someone trying to accomplish what their constituents voted them into office for. It is someone grand-standing to create the appearance that they are doing something.
Furthermore, of all the amendments passed by congress only four of them did not have a deadline for the states to ratify them. Those four amendments are still out there waiting to be ratified by the states. We are still waiting for the Corwin Amendment (1861) to be ratified.
The latest proposed balanced budget amendment obviously started with the text of the 1996 version but, among other changes, the authors exemplified their recklessness by removing the seven year ratification deadline. That would set us up for a constitutional crisis when some states ratify, then revoke their ratification, new states are added to the union, a state splits into two states (like Virginia did), etc.
If the Tea Party is serious about their claims they could start by proposing a budget that actually meets their proposed constitutional amendment.
And her penalty was a $10 fine plus $4 in court costs*. Rosa Parks also spent one day in jail waiting to be bailed out. Her trial took place one week after she was charged.
Today, it would costs tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees just to get the charges moved down to the real offense rather than some trumped-up felony. It would also cost tens of thousands of dollars to post bail. Anyone who can't post bail has to sit in jail awaiting trail which can potentially take years.
*adjusted for inflation $14 in 1955 would be $120 in 2011.
That didn't stop the US Supreme Court from ruling that police helicopters operating infared cameras scanning houses from above were not a "search."
I think you are referring to Kyllo v United States which ruled exactly the opposite of what you have stated. The court concluded that using infrared cameras to scan homes for leaking heat is a search and thus requires a warrant under the fourth amendment. The basis for the court's opinion was very similar to the grandparent post.
Of course, that ruling also involved Clarence "just bribe my wife" Thomas. So, maybe it'll one day be reversed by a saner court.
The ruling did indeed involve Thomas who joined the majority opinion in a 5-4 decision. Quite frankly I would consider any court that reverses the ruling to be less sane.
While the researchers make some good points from a technical perspective there really are more fundamental issues with PROTECT-IP. The proposed law would grant the government power to selectively censor websites without due process. Those are some pretty basic violations of the constitution and a huge threat to freedom of speech. And the reality is, the government is already doing this without the PROTECT-IP act.
Wouldn't it only be incriminating testimony if you had *actually* killed a guy in 1998 at work?
It doesn't have to be true to be incriminating. Maybe someone at work died suddenly in 1998. Maybe someone at work died in 1988 in which case they will claim you mistyped the year. The passphrase didn't say it had to be your workplace. Perhaps a construction work was the victim of a hit-and-run in 1998 while he was at work. Whatever the case, you can bet that if law enforcement sees that passphrase they are going to investigate.
Install software without permission on 100 machines at two stores that each take and upload a picture to your personal server every minute. Return every day, for several days, doing so since apple wipes the machines every day. Remotely trigger the software to show a slide show of your making (calling doing so "arranging an exhibition")
Who is to say he did not have permission? Apple sets the machines out, powers them on, and let's people use them. They don't post a sign detailing what you can and can't do with the machines. The fact that Apple wiped the machines every day shows that Apple knew people were changing the state. Rather than lock the machines down, Apple permitted the changes but reverted to a known beginning state at the start of each day.
So the government is unable to prevent people leaking sensitive diplomatic cables and embarrassing videos and documents yet they can pull off massive false flag operations without a single person leaking the fact that it's a government operation? Umm, yeah right.
It doesn't require the government to carry out a false flag. It could easily be a single person at Fox News who has the password, goes to the library, posts the fake information and claims it was a hacker.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
This is really aimed at government officials that commit crimes. If you are asking if judges can be removed from office because their rulings don't "support this Constitution" the answer is probably no. A judge has discretion to interpret the constitution. If congress disagrees with that interpretation they can amend the constitution.
Suppose the constitution is amended, a case with the exact same circumstances comes before the judge and he rules the same way regardless of the amendment. That is an issue that has not come up...
Microsoft gives IE away for free. The only reason they want to "win back your business" is to take advantage of vendor lock-in. I'm not seeing where this is good for the business, especially considering that the security fix for Firefox 4 is well-known and free (upgrade to Firefox 5).
That photo should flat out be public domain at this time regardless of whether the photographer is a live or dead.
While I agree with the sentiment I can certainly argue otherwise. In 1959 photos were published under the 1909 copyright act. That act granted copyright for 28 years plus another 28 years if renewed. So at the time the photo was created the author could have reasonably expected to have until 2015 to recoup his expenses. He may have priced his portfolio accordingly.
giving someone, in the process of committing a crime, information to help them, is a crime.
What crime is that? If I tell a hostage taker to put down his guns and turn himself in I am helping him but I don't think anyone would consider that a crime. If the police say, "we've got you surrounded", that is not a crime either. Letting the suspect know there is no escape is not so different from telling him to surrender.
I am actually quite surprised. I fully expected Siemens to hand the guy some hush money so he would cancel his presentation. This could be the first time in years that the black hat conference has run without canceling a controversial presentation.
Police - Your honor, I need a warrant to search the suspect's home.
Judge - What probable cause are you basing the warrant on?
Police - The suspect destroyed the evidence.
Judge - You saw him destroy the evidence?
Police - No, but there is no other way we could have missed it, the killer would have left a trail of blood. Since the suspect did it and we didn't find a trail of blood the only possible explanation is that he destroyed the evidence. To deny this warrant would be to reward him for committing more crimes.
Judge - ??
It doesn't work that way. The standards of evidence may vary but the presumption of innocence applies to the entire legal system.
Though I do have to admit that I frequently skip judges when I vote as I often don't have enough time to research their positions and records like I would like to and I won't vote an uninformed ballot.
You shouldn't need to research their 'positions'. Judges should make decisions based on the constitution, the law, and the evidence. They most decidely should not base their decisions on public opinion, which litigant donated the most to their campaign, or how the decision will affect their chances of being re-elected.
Given that, you should always vote for the incumbant to insulate the judge from public opinion.
Done right, we can take the high level nuclear products from older reactors and use it for more than triggering NIMBY knee jerk politics near Yucca Mountain.
Whose back yard is Yucca Mountain near? It is on the largest military base in the US. If you look south south-east about four miles you will see craters left over from some 900 nuclear bomb tests.
Most proprietary data and market plans do not benefit from copyrights that last 95 years. In fact, most of that material will never be published. Actual published works such as movies, music, books, and news are a tiny fraction of the US economy. Of that tiny fraction, a very small portion is for works more than 14 years old.
If you do that you also lose some of the advantages of owning a home. A business loan generally has a higher interest rate. It may be taxed at a higher rate. If you ever have to file for bankruptcy much of the equity in your home is protected, but not the equity in your business.
As much as rms's predictions used to sound silly and exaggerated, they have an unfortunate tendency to be correct.
The Right to Read was based on policies and laws that had already been proposed. It should be no surprise that it is actually occurring. If it sounds silly and exaggerated it is because the proposed laws are so astonishing that they are difficult to believe.
We will continue to get closer and closer to the world depicted in The Right to Read until there is an organized lobby to move things another direction. Frankly, we need a constitutional amendment that puts strict limits on copyright.
I understand some companies paid $699 for a Linux license not long ago
If you're referring to the SCO case, SCO didn't actually sell any licenses. There were people who tried to get the license but could not because SCO wasn't actually selling them. The license offer was just a publicity stunt.
Hello nuclear engineers, can someone explain why it takes so long to shut down a nuclear power plant? I think my high school physics book was written by a pro-nuclear lobby. It assured me a nuclear plant can drop some control rods into place and stop the reaction. That may be true, but it still leaves a huge safety problem if it takes several weeks or even months for the reaction to stop.
Proposals for 'passive' cooling systems involve putting a big tank of water over the plant. If the plant shuts down you let gravity feed the cooling system. If a major incident happens, such as an earthquake or tsunami, it is likely to damage the tank and let all of the water out. What good is a passive system that is subject to the same problems as the plant itself?
Why can't we build a nuclear power plant that requires an active system to keep feeding the reaction, and make the reaction stop within minutes rather than weeks?
The actual goal is to make as many districts that are roughly 55-60% "theirs", just enough to ensure consistent wins, and then pack the remaining voters that are "not theirs" into as few districts as possible that contain 90% or above "not theirs" districts.
Along with that you also want the 'enemy' incumbents to live in one of your safe districts so they have no chance of getting re-elected. At the same time, the enemy's safe district has to run a new politician that will not be as influential as their predecessor.
If you want to actually try out the redistricting process, there is an online game to help out.
Slashdot Mirror
The entire foundation of your argument is wrong.
Federal spending as percent of GDP
As someone else pointed out, $X is the sum of many things plus $Y, so no matter how much $Y grows it will never exceed $X.
The Democrats and Republicans in congress are putting forth proposals to save 1-2 trillion dollars over the next decade which would continue to leave us with massive deficits over the next ten years. We would be a lot closer to balancing the budget if we would pull the military out of Iraq and Afgananistan, end the Bush tax cuts, and stop bailing out big companies.
A balanced budget amendment passed the House of Representatives and nearly passed the Senate in 1996. Instead of working with an amendment that nearly passed, they added numerous severe restrictions knowing full-well their radicalized version stood no chance of passing. That is not someone trying to accomplish what their constituents voted them into office for. It is someone grand-standing to create the appearance that they are doing something.
Furthermore, of all the amendments passed by congress only four of them did not have a deadline for the states to ratify them. Those four amendments are still out there waiting to be ratified by the states. We are still waiting for the Corwin Amendment (1861) to be ratified.
The latest proposed balanced budget amendment obviously started with the text of the 1996 version but, among other changes, the authors exemplified their recklessness by removing the seven year ratification deadline. That would set us up for a constitutional crisis when some states ratify, then revoke their ratification, new states are added to the union, a state splits into two states (like Virginia did), etc.
If the Tea Party is serious about their claims they could start by proposing a budget that actually meets their proposed constitutional amendment.
And her penalty was a $10 fine plus $4 in court costs*. Rosa Parks also spent one day in jail waiting to be bailed out. Her trial took place one week after she was charged.
Today, it would costs tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees just to get the charges moved down to the real offense rather than some trumped-up felony. It would also cost tens of thousands of dollars to post bail. Anyone who can't post bail has to sit in jail awaiting trail which can potentially take years.
*adjusted for inflation $14 in 1955 would be $120 in 2011.
I think you are referring to Kyllo v United States which ruled exactly the opposite of what you have stated. The court concluded that using infrared cameras to scan homes for leaking heat is a search and thus requires a warrant under the fourth amendment. The basis for the court's opinion was very similar to the grandparent post.
The ruling did indeed involve Thomas who joined the majority opinion in a 5-4 decision. Quite frankly I would consider any court that reverses the ruling to be less sane.
While the researchers make some good points from a technical perspective there really are more fundamental issues with PROTECT-IP. The proposed law would grant the government power to selectively censor websites without due process. Those are some pretty basic violations of the constitution and a huge threat to freedom of speech. And the reality is, the government is already doing this without the PROTECT-IP act.
Keith Ellison from Minnesota and Andre Carson from Indiana are both Muslim. Hank Johnson from Georgia and Mazie Hirono from Hawaii are both Buddhists. There are 13 Jewish Senators and 27 Jewish Representatives. Finally, congress includes one atheist, and nine members that have not identified their religion.
It doesn't have to be true to be incriminating. Maybe someone at work died suddenly in 1998. Maybe someone at work died in 1988 in which case they will claim you mistyped the year. The passphrase didn't say it had to be your workplace. Perhaps a construction work was the victim of a hit-and-run in 1998 while he was at work. Whatever the case, you can bet that if law enforcement sees that passphrase they are going to investigate.
Who is to say he did not have permission? Apple sets the machines out, powers them on, and let's people use them. They don't post a sign detailing what you can and can't do with the machines. The fact that Apple wiped the machines every day shows that Apple knew people were changing the state. Rather than lock the machines down, Apple permitted the changes but reverted to a known beginning state at the start of each day.
It doesn't require the government to carry out a false flag. It could easily be a single person at Fox News who has the password, goes to the library, posts the fake information and claims it was a hacker.
From the constitution:
This is really aimed at government officials that commit crimes. If you are asking if judges can be removed from office because their rulings don't "support this Constitution" the answer is probably no. A judge has discretion to interpret the constitution. If congress disagrees with that interpretation they can amend the constitution.
Suppose the constitution is amended, a case with the exact same circumstances comes before the judge and he rules the same way regardless of the amendment. That is an issue that has not come up...
Microsoft gives IE away for free. The only reason they want to "win back your business" is to take advantage of vendor lock-in. I'm not seeing where this is good for the business, especially considering that the security fix for Firefox 4 is well-known and free (upgrade to Firefox 5).
While I agree with the sentiment I can certainly argue otherwise. In 1959 photos were published under the 1909 copyright act. That act granted copyright for 28 years plus another 28 years if renewed. So at the time the photo was created the author could have reasonably expected to have until 2015 to recoup his expenses. He may have priced his portfolio accordingly.
What crime is that? If I tell a hostage taker to put down his guns and turn himself in I am helping him but I don't think anyone would consider that a crime. If the police say, "we've got you surrounded", that is not a crime either. Letting the suspect know there is no escape is not so different from telling him to surrender.
When you, and other people like you do the hard work of getting elected to congress and change the law.
I am actually quite surprised. I fully expected Siemens to hand the guy some hush money so he would cancel his presentation. This could be the first time in years that the black hat conference has run without canceling a controversial presentation.
Police - Your honor, I need a warrant to search the suspect's home.
Judge - What probable cause are you basing the warrant on?
Police - The suspect destroyed the evidence.
Judge - You saw him destroy the evidence?
Police - No, but there is no other way we could have missed it, the killer would have left a trail of blood. Since the suspect did it and we didn't find a trail of blood the only possible explanation is that he destroyed the evidence. To deny this warrant would be to reward him for committing more crimes.
Judge - ??
It doesn't work that way. The standards of evidence may vary but the presumption of innocence applies to the entire legal system.
You shouldn't need to research their 'positions'. Judges should make decisions based on the constitution, the law, and the evidence. They most decidely should not base their decisions on public opinion, which litigant donated the most to their campaign, or how the decision will affect their chances of being re-elected.
Given that, you should always vote for the incumbant to insulate the judge from public opinion.
Whose back yard is Yucca Mountain near? It is on the largest military base in the US. If you look south south-east about four miles you will see craters left over from some 900 nuclear bomb tests.
All MRIs look the same...
Most proprietary data and market plans do not benefit from copyrights that last 95 years. In fact, most of that material will never be published. Actual published works such as movies, music, books, and news are a tiny fraction of the US economy. Of that tiny fraction, a very small portion is for works more than 14 years old.
If you do that you also lose some of the advantages of owning a home. A business loan generally has a higher interest rate. It may be taxed at a higher rate. If you ever have to file for bankruptcy much of the equity in your home is protected, but not the equity in your business.
The Right to Read was based on policies and laws that had already been proposed. It should be no surprise that it is actually occurring. If it sounds silly and exaggerated it is because the proposed laws are so astonishing that they are difficult to believe.
We will continue to get closer and closer to the world depicted in The Right to Read until there is an organized lobby to move things another direction. Frankly, we need a constitutional amendment that puts strict limits on copyright.
If you're referring to the SCO case, SCO didn't actually sell any licenses. There were people who tried to get the license but could not because SCO wasn't actually selling them. The license offer was just a publicity stunt.
Hello nuclear engineers, can someone explain why it takes so long to shut down a nuclear power plant? I think my high school physics book was written by a pro-nuclear lobby. It assured me a nuclear plant can drop some control rods into place and stop the reaction. That may be true, but it still leaves a huge safety problem if it takes several weeks or even months for the reaction to stop.
Proposals for 'passive' cooling systems involve putting a big tank of water over the plant. If the plant shuts down you let gravity feed the cooling system. If a major incident happens, such as an earthquake or tsunami, it is likely to damage the tank and let all of the water out. What good is a passive system that is subject to the same problems as the plant itself?
Why can't we build a nuclear power plant that requires an active system to keep feeding the reaction, and make the reaction stop within minutes rather than weeks?
Along with that you also want the 'enemy' incumbents to live in one of your safe districts so they have no chance of getting re-elected. At the same time, the enemy's safe district has to run a new politician that will not be as influential as their predecessor.
If you want to actually try out the redistricting process, there is an online game to help out.