Tell you what, you just try to do anything now without being forced to give your national ID number- credit card, loans, electricity, health care, taxes, driving, ANYTHING useful.
Social security numbers were created for tax purposes so it is not surprising to see it required there. Employers pay your social security taxes so they need it as well. In the 1990s congress passed a law mandating that banks get your social security number before they do business with you so that applies to credit cards and loans. Existing customers were grandfather in.
Health care definitely does not require a social security number but they will whine and complain about how hard it is to work with your insurance company if you don't provide it. Health insurance companies will have your social security number because your employer will happily hand it to them even if you object. My auto and home insurance company does not have my social security number (although they have repeatedly asked for it).
None of my utility companies has my social security number.
I don't recall handing over a social security number to get my driver's license.
I do think it may be possible to train tens of thousands of people to be able to discretely and quietly remove that kind of information which can do unintended harm
Among those tens of thousands of individuals would be people who log everything they can get and sell it to interested parties.
For someone that is pushing a very libertarian philosophy that sounds like some pretty strict regulation.
5) get the government out of licensing doctors and medical schools (the chronic shortage is purposeful)
I don't know about you but I don't want someone slicing me open and operating on me based on a piece of paper from a degree mill.
8) get the States out of regulating insurance
Insurers collect premium from policy holders with a promise to pay in the event the policyholder has to file a claim. The purpose of insurance regulation is to make sure the insurer is solvent and thus able to pay their bills. Regulation is also intended to make sure insurers follow fair claim practices. Without regulation we would go back to the days of insurers collecting premium, paying big dividents to the investors, then declaring bankruptcy when a big claim comes along, leaving the policyholder without any coverage. We would also see insurers simply refusing to pay legitimate claims in order to improve their bottom line.
He can draft proposed laws which could then be submitted to congress. It is no secret that congress does not write its own laws. Instead they take bills drafted by special interests and blindly submit them for a vote. Right now open source doesn't have much of a presence in congress. Your friend could change that by drafting proposed bills that would fix some of the troublesome laws we have.
Why exactly [hasn't] some decent Western power has had [sic] that vile repugnant monster Mugabe filled so full of holes you could use him as a soup strainer is beyond me.
8. (C) The other scenarios are all less attractive: a popular
uprising would inevitably entail a bloodbath, even if it
were ultimately successful; Mugabe's sudden, unexpected
death would set off a stampede for power among ZANU-PF
heavy weights; a palace coup, whether initiated within
ZANU-PF or from the military - in which Mugabe is removed,
killed, exiled or otherwise disposed of, could well devolve
into open conflict between the contending successors. Similarly,
some form of "constitutional coup" i.e., a change at the top
engineered within the framework of ZANU-PFQs "legitimate"
structures could well prove to be merely the opening bell
in a prolonged power struggle. None of the players is
likely to go quietly into the night without giving everything
they have, including calling on
their supporters in the security services. Moreover, experience
elsewhere would suggest that whoever comes out on top
initially will struggle, and more than likely fail, to halt
the economic collapse.
The cable was published December 8th while Julian Assange was in jail awaiting an extradition hearing. It was released by some other member of Wikileaks. Assange is the public face of Wikileaks. Pointing fingers at Assange is like blaming White House press secretary Robert Gibbs when he tells you Obama's position on a topic, except in this case it would be like blaming Gibbs while he is on vacation and someone else is filling in for him.
It would help if people could read the cable we are discussing. From the cable it looks to me like Tsvangirai is trying to negotiate a plan to reduce sanctions.
Another interesting cable sums up the situation in Zimbabwe back in 2007.
If you read the article you will notice the victim tried to be cautious. He deposited the check into his bank account. He later verified with the bank that the check had cleared. Only then did he wire funds out of his account. Sometime later the bank revoked the checks claiming they had been altered. Since the victim did not have any money to cover the lost funds the bank attached a lien to his property.
It was actually the bank that lost money. The bank is trying to collect from the victim. The victim sued the bank to have the lien removed from his property. He lost, and lost again on appeal.
Frankly, I think it is the bank that should be held responsible here. They are the ones that verified the check was good, that it cleared, that the funds were in the victim's accounts, and they are the ones that allowed the funds to be wired out of the country. Ultimately, the bank will be held liable since they will never collect their $468,000. But they are all-to-happy to do whatever they can to ruin the victim's life in the process.
The National Guard is still under the federal government's control. Without federal control I think we would have seen numerous wars among the states while our national military would have been far less effective.
DARPA did it first, but creating a large network with some degree of redundancy is obvious, due to Metcalf's Law (larger networks being more valuable than collections of small, disjoint networks) and the unreliability of network components. In other words, the internet would have happened anyway.
DARPA's research predates Metcalf's Law by more than a decade. As a leader in network research Metcalf must have been famliar with ARPANet. It is quite likely that work influenced Metcalf's perception of networking. Regardless, Metcalf's law doesn't say anything about network reliability.
Prior to DARPA the prevailing theory was that circuit-switched networks were the way to go. The entire phone system was built on circuit-switched networks. There is no reason to think a packet-switched network would have suddenly become popular without a little prodding by the government.
Long after DARPA's research, commercial entities such as AOL, Prodigy, and CompuServe had their own ideas about how computer networks should function. If a commercial entity had invented the Internet it would have functioned like the AOL of 1993 where all content has to be approved by a single corporation. That corporation would collect a tax on all transactions. It would kick out anyone it did not agree with. It would be far, far different than the Internet we have today and it would have undoubtedly happened much later.
I'm not aware of any bill that was ruled unconstitutional in its entirety. Courts issue rulings on specific issues for which the relevant parties have standing. It is doubtful the people challenging the mandatory pay issue (prospective policyholder) would have standing to also challenge the mandatory coverage issue (insurer). Congress could have included a severability clause that would have tied these two issues together (maybe they did, I haven't read the law). Barring such a clause the courts can only address the issue that is being challenged.
Nothing in the constitution explicitly gives the courts this law overturning power, but it has generally been upheld and was common practice in law at the time. The degree to which judges can modify laws based on unconstitutionality is subject to much debate at the present time.
The way I see it laws force responsibility or penalties on people. For the government to use its full force a bill must be passed into law by congress, then either the President must sign the bill or congress must vote the bill into law with a 2/3 (super) majority. The executive branch must then execute the law, such as by arresting someone, and finally the courts must rule on whether or not the defendant violated the law, and if so whether or not the law is constitutional.
The court is the final arbiter on the process so if the courts refuse the enforce the law, it is dead. The U.S. is a common-law nation so precedent set by a higher court is binding on lower courts. That effectively means if the Supreme Court rules a law unconstitutional lower courts must abide by the ruling. A lower court could ignore precedent and do its own thing but the lower court would simply be overturned on appeal. However, in a few rare cases the Supreme Court has actually reversed itself.
Even though the Supreme Court may rule a law unconstitutional it is still on the books, the executive branch can still try to enforce it, and the court could even reverse itself.
The reality is that every branch has the power to stop an unconstitutional law. Congress can decline to pass it. The President can refuse to execute it. And the courts can refuse to enforce it.
thought the deal with the big blackout was that the network(TCP/IP) was flooded with a Windows virus infection and if you know TCP/IP, it's not very good with lots of traffic...TCP/IP does this thing where the message isn't put on the network if there's going to be a collision and it waits some before trying again.
You're thinking of Ethernet. On an Ethernet network all the machines inside a collision domain share the same bus. If more than one machine transmits at the same time the transmissions will scramble each other (aka a collision). Ethernet uses Binary Exponential Backoff to reduce the chance of another collision when it retransmits.
Yes, too much traffic can take down an old Ethernet network. These days everyone uses switches with full duplex so there are no collisions. I imagine that similar problems could occur with wireless, however.
More like a group of car manufacturers that can charge $400 for a cheap camera
I very much doubt that. Car manufacturers are able to charge $400 to add that optional feature to the car in large part because it costs that much to have someone else add it after the car has been built. If backup cameras become standard on all cars manufacturers will have to include it in the base price and continue selling the car at whatever the market will bear. Car manufacturers would no longer be able to charge an extra $400 to add that cheap camera. I think car manufacturers will be one group that lobbies against this legislation.
how can you put a value on a human life...Common people do it all the time when they buy life insurance.
Life insurance is meant for the people who depend on someone's financial contributions to support them. The value of a life insurance policy should be the amount of financial support the beneficiaries lose due to the person's death. It does not address the value of life to the person who died nor does it address the non-monetary value the person provides to those around them.
Furthermore, life insurance, like any insurance, is a transfer of risk. Someone who is independently wealthy does not need life insurance as their savings will suffice. Someone working a minimum-wage job with three kids and a spouse likely can not afford a policy large enough to cover their needs.
I would like to discuss one of the cables. I can link to it right now, but will that link be active in two days? How about two hours? As long as wikileaks has to keep moving, discussion of the content is hampered.
By the way, the cable I linked to was about Google being harassed by the Chinese government. The cable was from July 2009, nearly a year before Google finally left the country. The last paragraph got my attention:
8. (SBU) Comment. Google is the only international search engine still doing business in China. It is an important symbol. If Google were forced to withdraw from the market, the move could attract heavy international attention. End Comment.
It sounds like they were strategizing that sitting back and watching things unfold could be a better option than stepping up and discussing the topic with the Chinese government. I guess you can decide for yourself what you think the best course of action was but the comment is certainly interesting.
You are correct that the bill of rights was limited to the federal government when it was passed. In 1868 the 14th amendment expanded federal constitutional rights forcing states to abide by them as well.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
There have been many Supreme Court rulings on state sponsorship of religion. The first amendment has been held to apply to states time-and-time again.
This is being designed by Sony and Nikon, respectively #3 and #1 DSLR sellers in the world
It is also being developed by SanDisk, and let's not forget Sony's markets in laptops and other consumer electronics. Nikon also has markets in industrial, forensic, and laboratory equipment that could benefit from larger storage sizes. Furthermore, these companies are likely to get patents on the spec. Why should they lock themselves out of potentially lucrative royalties that come with a well-established standard?
I don't know that it will make it through the H.O.R. (haha "whore") but it's shocking to see not a single 'nay' vote on something in such dispute in the real world.
The Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) made it through congress in one day without any opposition. That was one week before the 1998 election. In case you don't recall, the CTEA retroactively extended copyright by 20 years.
In case you haven't noticed congress always favors the media. It is the media that controls their public image and chances of getting (re)elected. It is also the media that pushes for draconian copyright laws.
I can't see the article. The sample on Slashdot is 302x220 pixels even though the summary says 320x240. I would imagine if that font were in its original 320x240 format it would be far more legible.
With that said I assume the picture on Slashdot is just a scaled version of the original. In which case your font is wider but shorter. Your font spanned 40 lines while the font from the article only spanned 34 lines. And you managed to fit eight more words into the box.
Remember, the US bill of rights only prevents the federal government from making laws that infringe citizen's rights. The Canadian bill of rights directs the government to make sure that no one infringes those rights.
The 14th amendment to the US Constitution extended federal rights so state and local governments are also barred from infringing them.
Slashdot Mirror
Social security numbers were created for tax purposes so it is not surprising to see it required there. Employers pay your social security taxes so they need it as well. In the 1990s congress passed a law mandating that banks get your social security number before they do business with you so that applies to credit cards and loans. Existing customers were grandfather in.
Health care definitely does not require a social security number but they will whine and complain about how hard it is to work with your insurance company if you don't provide it. Health insurance companies will have your social security number because your employer will happily hand it to them even if you object. My auto and home insurance company does not have my social security number (although they have repeatedly asked for it).
None of my utility companies has my social security number.
I don't recall handing over a social security number to get my driver's license.
Among those tens of thousands of individuals would be people who log everything they can get and sell it to interested parties.
People still remember your work. I just read another comment about Sundog (on an Atari)...
For someone that is pushing a very libertarian philosophy that sounds like some pretty strict regulation.
I don't know about you but I don't want someone slicing me open and operating on me based on a piece of paper from a degree mill.
Insurers collect premium from policy holders with a promise to pay in the event the policyholder has to file a claim. The purpose of insurance regulation is to make sure the insurer is solvent and thus able to pay their bills. Regulation is also intended to make sure insurers follow fair claim practices. Without regulation we would go back to the days of insurers collecting premium, paying big dividents to the investors, then declaring bankruptcy when a big claim comes along, leaving the policyholder without any coverage. We would also see insurers simply refusing to pay legitimate claims in order to improve their bottom line.
He can draft proposed laws which could then be submitted to congress. It is no secret that congress does not write its own laws. Instead they take bills drafted by special interests and blindly submit them for a vote. Right now open source doesn't have much of a presence in congress. Your friend could change that by drafting proposed bills that would fix some of the troublesome laws we have.
One of the cables addressed that point.
The cable was published December 8th while Julian Assange was in jail awaiting an extradition hearing. It was released by some other member of Wikileaks. Assange is the public face of Wikileaks. Pointing fingers at Assange is like blaming White House press secretary Robert Gibbs when he tells you Obama's position on a topic, except in this case it would be like blaming Gibbs while he is on vacation and someone else is filling in for him.
It would help if people could read the cable we are discussing. From the cable it looks to me like Tsvangirai is trying to negotiate a plan to reduce sanctions.
Another interesting cable sums up the situation in Zimbabwe back in 2007.
If you read the article you will notice the victim tried to be cautious. He deposited the check into his bank account. He later verified with the bank that the check had cleared. Only then did he wire funds out of his account. Sometime later the bank revoked the checks claiming they had been altered. Since the victim did not have any money to cover the lost funds the bank attached a lien to his property.
It was actually the bank that lost money. The bank is trying to collect from the victim. The victim sued the bank to have the lien removed from his property. He lost, and lost again on appeal.
Frankly, I think it is the bank that should be held responsible here. They are the ones that verified the check was good, that it cleared, that the funds were in the victim's accounts, and they are the ones that allowed the funds to be wired out of the country. Ultimately, the bank will be held liable since they will never collect their $468,000. But they are all-to-happy to do whatever they can to ruin the victim's life in the process.
The National Guard is still under the federal government's control. Without federal control I think we would have seen numerous wars among the states while our national military would have been far less effective.
Are you suggesting that each of the 50 US states should have their own military?
DARPA's research predates Metcalf's Law by more than a decade. As a leader in network research Metcalf must have been famliar with ARPANet. It is quite likely that work influenced Metcalf's perception of networking. Regardless, Metcalf's law doesn't say anything about network reliability.
Prior to DARPA the prevailing theory was that circuit-switched networks were the way to go. The entire phone system was built on circuit-switched networks. There is no reason to think a packet-switched network would have suddenly become popular without a little prodding by the government.
Long after DARPA's research, commercial entities such as AOL, Prodigy, and CompuServe had their own ideas about how computer networks should function. If a commercial entity had invented the Internet it would have functioned like the AOL of 1993 where all content has to be approved by a single corporation. That corporation would collect a tax on all transactions. It would kick out anyone it did not agree with. It would be far, far different than the Internet we have today and it would have undoubtedly happened much later.
I'm not aware of any bill that was ruled unconstitutional in its entirety. Courts issue rulings on specific issues for which the relevant parties have standing. It is doubtful the people challenging the mandatory pay issue (prospective policyholder) would have standing to also challenge the mandatory coverage issue (insurer). Congress could have included a severability clause that would have tied these two issues together (maybe they did, I haven't read the law). Barring such a clause the courts can only address the issue that is being challenged.
The way I see it laws force responsibility or penalties on people. For the government to use its full force a bill must be passed into law by congress, then either the President must sign the bill or congress must vote the bill into law with a 2/3 (super) majority. The executive branch must then execute the law, such as by arresting someone, and finally the courts must rule on whether or not the defendant violated the law, and if so whether or not the law is constitutional.
The court is the final arbiter on the process so if the courts refuse the enforce the law, it is dead. The U.S. is a common-law nation so precedent set by a higher court is binding on lower courts. That effectively means if the Supreme Court rules a law unconstitutional lower courts must abide by the ruling. A lower court could ignore precedent and do its own thing but the lower court would simply be overturned on appeal. However, in a few rare cases the Supreme Court has actually reversed itself.
Even though the Supreme Court may rule a law unconstitutional it is still on the books, the executive branch can still try to enforce it, and the court could even reverse itself.
The reality is that every branch has the power to stop an unconstitutional law. Congress can decline to pass it. The President can refuse to execute it. And the courts can refuse to enforce it.
You're thinking of Ethernet. On an Ethernet network all the machines inside a collision domain share the same bus. If more than one machine transmits at the same time the transmissions will scramble each other (aka a collision). Ethernet uses Binary Exponential Backoff to reduce the chance of another collision when it retransmits.
Yes, too much traffic can take down an old Ethernet network. These days everyone uses switches with full duplex so there are no collisions. I imagine that similar problems could occur with wireless, however.
Getting sued for violating the policy.
If someone breaks into your site and distributes subscriber email addresses you will be liable.
Again, if you fail to protect the subscribers' secrets you could be held liable.
I very much doubt that. Car manufacturers are able to charge $400 to add that optional feature to the car in large part because it costs that much to have someone else add it after the car has been built. If backup cameras become standard on all cars manufacturers will have to include it in the base price and continue selling the car at whatever the market will bear. Car manufacturers would no longer be able to charge an extra $400 to add that cheap camera. I think car manufacturers will be one group that lobbies against this legislation.
Life insurance is meant for the people who depend on someone's financial contributions to support them. The value of a life insurance policy should be the amount of financial support the beneficiaries lose due to the person's death. It does not address the value of life to the person who died nor does it address the non-monetary value the person provides to those around them.
Furthermore, life insurance, like any insurance, is a transfer of risk. Someone who is independently wealthy does not need life insurance as their savings will suffice. Someone working a minimum-wage job with three kids and a spouse likely can not afford a policy large enough to cover their needs.
By the way, the cable I linked to was about Google being harassed by the Chinese government. The cable was from July 2009, nearly a year before Google finally left the country. The last paragraph got my attention:
It sounds like they were strategizing that sitting back and watching things unfold could be a better option than stepping up and discussing the topic with the Chinese government. I guess you can decide for yourself what you think the best course of action was but the comment is certainly interesting.
There have been many Supreme Court rulings on state sponsorship of religion. The first amendment has been held to apply to states time-and-time again.
It is also being developed by SanDisk, and let's not forget Sony's markets in laptops and other consumer electronics. Nikon also has markets in industrial, forensic, and laboratory equipment that could benefit from larger storage sizes. Furthermore, these companies are likely to get patents on the spec. Why should they lock themselves out of potentially lucrative royalties that come with a well-established standard?
The Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) made it through congress in one day without any opposition. That was one week before the 1998 election. In case you don't recall, the CTEA retroactively extended copyright by 20 years.
In case you haven't noticed congress always favors the media. It is the media that controls their public image and chances of getting (re)elected. It is also the media that pushes for draconian copyright laws.
Are you saying things are different in Canada?
I can't see the article. The sample on Slashdot is 302x220 pixels even though the summary says 320x240. I would imagine if that font were in its original 320x240 format it would be far more legible.
With that said I assume the picture on Slashdot is just a scaled version of the original. In which case your font is wider but shorter. Your font spanned 40 lines while the font from the article only spanned 34 lines. And you managed to fit eight more words into the box.
The 14th amendment to the US Constitution extended federal rights so state and local governments are also barred from infringing them.