Yes, the $22.5 billion profit came from AIG's stock price going up, because AIG's looking like it's a viable company that's doing just fine again. No, it's not because the government's sneakily manipulating its own balance sheet (this time). AIG's stock price went up along with the whole market in general because the economy's doing better. This is a result of everything the government and private companies are doing, including stimulus, investments, and regular growth.
The AIG stock was profitable because the recovery program worked.
I'm a Michigan native (now having found greener pastures elsewhere), and can personally attest to the vital role of the auto industry. A town a few miles out from my home was one of those we're-not-really-all-farmers cities at the crossroads of two US highways. About two thirds of its workforce were employed in a single plastics factory, whose sole contract was to feed GM.
Now, that was in the southern part of the state as you noted, but still... my point is that these places do still exist, painful as they may be.
TARP as a whole still has $41 billion in outstanding loans. If every current loan defaulted today, TARP would only lose about $31 billion (accounting for current profits). Projections from October (which don't count AIG's sale) were that TARP would lose $24 billion overall, having disbursed over $418 billion through its lifetime. Reality is that loss was always expected, as housing assistance was not intended to be recovered. Current estimates are for a slight profit on everything intended for recovery.
The billions that will be lost went to individuals, not the banks, auto industry, or any other big company.
Perhaps we should look back at a simpler example of companies "too big to fail" that did: Coal mines. Once upon a time, coal towns could rely on a steady stream of work for not-too-bad (for the time) pay. No, it wasn't really enough to get wealthy or pay off significant debt, but you could live and raise a family. Besides the straightforward income from mining, the whole town's economy would be fed by the coal mine, from the saloons entertaining the miners, to coaches trading goods with other towns. When the coal ran out, though, the towns often died off. Without a critical mass of commerce, the town's industries weren't self-sustaining.
Today, there are few places left that rely on a single company for their whole town's income, but they do still exist. Far more common are cities that rely on a particular sector. For example, much of rural Michigan supports the auto industry, either directly or indirectly. If the entire auto industry were to fail at once, those towns would have to rebuild their entire industry to survive - a prospect that's far beyond their budgets.
That's what "too big to fail" really is. In a recession like 2007, where entire industry sectors were near collapse, one company failing doesn't mean there's a boost for competitors. It means there's people whose jobs are gone, and nobody's hiring their experienced skills, because nobody in their industry has the financial confidence to expand into the space left by the failed company.
Government intervention in a major recession isn't "papering over" anything. It's just a promise that contracts will be fulfilled and money will continue to move, so nobody's stuck without a job or hope until their town's retooling finishes in a few decades. Where a company's failure would be instantaneous, the government's control can slow down the damage, giving those dependent areas time to react. If there's one thing the government bureaucracy does well, it's moving slowly. Meanwhile, branches can be sold off as purchasers arise and employees can train while still employed, so the overall impact is softened.
Outside of a major recession, the "too big to fail" situation usually doesn't exist. As mentioned earlier, most towns have more than a single company funding them, and most industries have viable enough competition that a single failure's employees can be absorbed by the competitors. That's also why Stallman's solution is ridiculous. When companies are too big to fail, their single-customer suppliers are too vital to fail, regardless of which division they supply. Splitting up a big company doesn't do anything to the risk, but it makes hippies happier.
First, ignore everything. Seriously, ignore anything anybody's ever told you about the legal document, because it doesn't mean anything. The exact written words don't mean anything, nor does anything verbal spoken about the document. What matters is what a judge would think about the document and the actions people take because of it. The written words are just to clarify what the writers want a judge to think about. This is why having a lawyer read documents is so important: The lawyer understands the legal history behind the words used, and can better predict what a judge will decide.
Next, start reading. Legal texts are usually long and complex, to clarify every mundane discrepancy that might lead to a disagreement, so skip over all of that. Also skip over any section headings, because they're usually ignored by judges (and remember, it's the judges that matter), being meant only to help find useful parts of the document for particular situations. Instead, pretend you're back in primary school first learning to read. Split each sentence into its basic parts: A subject and an action. That will tell you the main meaning of the sentence. Then look for what's not included - any exceptions or omissions that might be covered in other sections of the document.
Condense any synonyms. Exact word choice can make a huge difference on a judge's decisions, so lawyers will use multiple words with the same overall meaning to give their clients options. For example, simply getting rid of paperwork at the end of its useful life might involve shredding or incinerating it, which is "destruction". If some pages get lost or forgotten during shredding, they might be considered "abandoned". If someone picks up the forgotten pages and drops them in the trash can, that's "disposal". A well-written contract would specify which of those actions are allowed and which, if any, are not. While this verbosity makes the document much clearer if a judge needs to read it, the unfortunate side effect is that the document seems repetitive on cursory review.
Finally, consider consideration. Most contracts require that each side give up something, and without that mutual concession nothing would happen. For example, I give up my legal right to the exclusivity of publishing this comment, and Slashdot's corporate overlords agree to publish it, among various other services. When reading a legal document, keep an eye out for what obligations you're agreeing to, and what the other parties are agreeing to.
That's it. That's all there is to reading legal documents. As opposed to a literary work, legal documents are written for accuracy and precision rather than ease of reading. As opposed to a computer program, they aren't so much instructions as they are suggestions to the judge. Most justice systems are based around the notion that the law describes what's right or wrong, and judges determine whether particular laws apply to particular situations.
TL;DR: If you need a TL;DR version, hire a lawyer.
It'll need extensive tweaking for each browser to manage such a complicated interface, but MS can manage that.
Right, just like OWA works fully on all browsers. After all, it's been out for a decade already and it's been redesigned several times...
Microsoft will never even try to "manage that", because it goes against Microsoft's core business model. While most companies accept that customers want tools that do the job well, Microsoft only makes tools that do the job well only when paired with other Microsoft products. This is why the term "Microsoft shop" is so much more common than an equivalent "Adobe shop" or "Oracle shop", or even an "Apple shop" - at least when referring to more than a single tool.
Despite Apple's alarming growth and nasty business tactics, I just can's seem to gather as much hatred for them as I can for Microsoft. Apple's tools are smooth. My iPad will easily work with anything else, whether it's connecting to OS X, Windows, or Linux (though Linux has some issues still). Using iTunes on Windows doesn't leave me looking for missing features, like I usually do when trying to use OWA from Chrome.
On the other hand, I expect that Office will never have an iOS app or a full WebKit-compatible interface. Microsoft can still bring its monopoly power to bear, and use its Office market share to promote its floundering Surface tablets. Some companies (probably including my current employer) will be interested in using tablets, but they need Office more than they need any feature of iOS, so they'll buy Surface tablets out of necessity, not choice.
Office documents are the last monopoly Microsoft has. Even its hold on the desktop OS market is breaking, as alternatives are becoming more viable with every new OS-agnostic cloud offering. Since Microsoft's main tactic has been to use its monopolies to force ancillary products on customers who just want things to work, I think we'll soon be seeing more extra "features" dropped into each new version of Office, just to force competitors to waste resources and maintain the all-important market share.
These researchers aren't the ones designing new technology, or indeed having any interest in it. These researchers are working on figuring out the unsolved mysteries of how the human brain works, so we can do useful things with those CPUs, network infrastructures, and compression techniques. These researchers are exploring the roots of helpful, kind, benevolent behavior, so that our future societies can encourage people to be nicer to each other, further lowering crime rates and improving the overall quality of life.
Then the nice happy people can sit back, relax, and watch streaming HD porn with their powerful computers, fast networks, and lossless compression.
Nope. It's a Unitarian Universalist church. I'm one of those "this is an interesting concept that should be discussed over one or twenty pots of coffee" nutjobs.
As a selfish volunteer, I'd wager that a good portion of those goods were donated to profit from the good feelings.
Sure, I volunteer as an audio technician to help my church and spread its message of peace, love, and happiness... but deep down I also love playing on a nice big sound rig that I didn't have to buy.
How cute. You seem to think that management gives a damn about regulations. Really, management will hear the promises of "cloud technology" and how it will lower equipment costs, reduce IT payroll, and magically keep all their data intact and accessible from anywhere, and they will never ask the whether it fits regulations, business needs, or is even possible to integrate into existing workflows.
So what you meant to say is that for the past one and a half centuries, we haven't been at risk for the exact same invasion tactic they used two centuries ago.
Amazingly, two centuries ago we weren't at risk for the kind of invasion we're vulnerable to today. Sure, the British could have invaded a single city, set off a few bombs, then boasted to the other nations that they had done so... but they'd have been mocked for having such a cowardly style, when a real invading force would send 10,000 soldiers in full regalia marching through the city streets.
Two centuries, eh? Exactly two centuries ago, in January of 1813, the United States was six months into the War of 1812. The British invaded many areas along the United States' northern border, and at times a total invasion was a plausible scenario. Then there was the Mexican-American war, the American Civil War, World War I and World War II, all of which featured several invasion attempts. Finally there's the Cold War, the very Red Dawn you refer to, during which the Soviet Union entertained several very real plans for invasion of North America.
Assuming you meant "two decades", you're still missing some key details. Two decades ago was 1993, shortly after the fall of the Soviets. That was actually one of the riskiest times for small-scale invasion, because rather than having a single powerful enemy, the United States had to shift its defense toward dozens of smaller states and groups who had access to the forgotten parts of the Soviet military. Any of them could have launched ICBM attacks against the United States, accompanied by air strikes and landing parties to claim a bit of territory. No, it wouldn't be long-lived, but it'd show the rest of the ex-Soviet states who was now the strongest.
Even now, the risk of a political-posturing invasion is very real. With enough advance planning, it's not too terribly hard for a terrorist group to effectively hold a city hostage. Nuclear materials for dirty bombs are relatively easy to acquire, though expensive. Acquiring a few offices or homes for long-term operations just requires some carefully-stolen identities and time. Finally at the right moment, a campaign of seemingly-random attacks, launched from completely ordinary places against completely ordinary civilians, can cripple the city's economy as the residents flee. The organizer can than take their place among the military powers of the world, and laugh at the American self-flagellating response.
Import legality won't really be a big issue, because Antigua would be able to determine the import laws. The United States could limit exports, but the United States has already agreed to this plan on the WTO side, and the US has enough enemies that may be willing to act as intermediaries. For the paltry sum of $21 million/year, I doubt anyone will really be able to effectively stop this.
However, note that the $21 million isn't necessarily sales, but rather copyright license fees (or at least that's what I suspect, because none of TFAs are clear on the matter). If the normal fee to the MPAA/RIAA were ten cents per item, Antigua could sell 210 million copies annually. That's a pretty reasonable amount, and does exactly what it's supposed to do: boost Antigua's economy at the United States' expense.
I agree that the five-year-old child needs food, and will need a job eventually. Let's set your tax rate at 100%, and in 13 years force you into retirement. We can do that.
I also agree that we shouldn't have active military bases in Germany. Since you'll be out of a job in a decade or so, we'll go ahead and make plans to drop you in Europe as the sole military presence. We'll even give you an old WWII hand grenade. When the protesters in Greece or Spain decide to launch a bloody coup, you will be the one to step in to help restore peace. Good luck with that, but you can die happily knowing how much money you saved the United States!
I guess what we can also do is ignore the opinions of others and our past commitments, and just hand more pork to our favored groups. As long as everybody agrees, we can all close our eyes, stick our fingers in our ears, and push forward.
Gun control, abortion, climate change, fracking, hunger, and troops in Germany are all important issues to somebody. The issues rarely center around "is this a problem?" but rather "what's the best way to fix it?" and that's what nobody can ever agree on.
Sure, a five-year-old should have food, but who's going to pay for its production and transportation? Should the government pay, or should we let private charities stretch their budgets just a bit further? If it's on the government's dime, should we shut down other programs to do it? What if those other programs are also important? Surely we don't need such a silly thing as military bases in Germany?
Those bases in Germany are no longer for protection against the Kaiser, but rather are part of our NATO obligations to have rapid deployment to anywhere in the vicinity. They also serve as rest stops for troops in active deployment in the Middle East, safely outside the range of most threats. They provide a nice place for recuperation, and are also within road and rail transportation from active locations. Keeping those bases open may actually be saving money in the long run, because our air travel needs are reduced.
Unfortunately, I have yet to find any "easy" problems at the Federal level. When you think you've found one, play Devil's advocate for a moment, and think about why your solution hasn't already been done. Figure out why someone good of heart and sound of mind would oppose your plan:
Drone surveillance is obviously an invasion of privacy (unless its use is regulated, and it does provide an opportunity to improve police efficiency).
Syria obviously needs help (though it's not really clear which side should get the help, or how aid could be administered, or which side (if any) is less inclined to cause more bloodshed later).
America obviously should pull out of its Middle Eastern conflicts (miraculously without leaving any weapons, ammunition, vulnerable informants (or their families), or hard feelings, yet still leaving a peace-loving effective local government in place).
A major government labor project, such as building a Death Star, would create STEM-sector jobs for millions of unemployed (and disrupt international relations, start a new Cold War, and drive government debt even higher, with no source of funding).
As I've said many times, every issue is more complicated than everybody thinks. There is always someone on the other side on the issue, not because they're evil, but because they have a different perspective. Every politician (and, I think, most humans) would love to have every child fed, every war ended, and every wish granted... but there is rarely a clear blueprint for how to solve any of those tractable, possible problems without just making more problems for the future.
The US already has a plurality voting system. I suspect you meant "proportional representation" in which case the US would be run by 4chan. It's far easier to get a bunch of pranksters to vote in support of something silly than it is to get a bunch of serious activists to agree on the right solution to complex problems.
For example, banning fracking would protect our water supply, but doom our energy supply. Fixing energy by supporting renewable power sources threatens jobs in fossil fuel extraction and transport. Protecting employment requires supporting expansion opportunities. Fracking is an expansion opportunity.
Everything is more complex than everyone thinks. Changing voting systems will not settle more disputes. It will just transfer the disputes from discussion into law, so problems are even harder to fix and people will (rightfully) have even less faith in the government.
The architect doesn't build the building - he designs it. This architect has worked out the engineering and structural complications of making a usable modern building from what are effectively giant jigsaw puzzle pieces. Now someone else would have to acquire the materials, buy the land, and actually assemble the thing. Whoever's actually going to own the building will decide what to do with it. It might be an office, or maybe an art museum, or perhaps just "a garage or something", but it's not the architect's choice.
Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 3. The Constitution allows Congress to regulate commerce among the states, with no stated restrictions. This is the biggest source of Congress' power, including the power to form the Department of Justice in 1870, which formed the FBI in the early 20th century.
The usual test for validity is whether Congress' actions have a cumulative effect on the economy of the states. Given the FBI's budget and employment, it looks like they'd pass that test.
The FBI is still required to have probable cause to conduct a "search", but as per my other post, not everything investigative is a search.
Ah, but now there's the questions of what a "search" actually is, what "unreasonable" actually is, what "probable cause" actually is, and how specific "particularly describing" must be.
The first one's the real problem, because the SCOTUS has determined that several things are not searches, primarily things that aren't the subject's own property. If one's not being searched (or having property seized), the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply. Even if there is a warrant, the Fourth Amendment doesn't require that the warrant be public knowledge, or even revealed to the subject (in some cases).
So while it's real easy to think that any kind of surveillance is a search, the reality is much more complicated. There's a fine balance between the freedom of citizens and impeding enforcement, and finding that balance is an ongoing task.
Okay... so in short - you didn't even read the fucking summary ?!?!?
That's a rather interesting argument, since the case details aren't even in the summary. I actually read the article, which was also pretty sparse on details, so I made a post that's not really even about the Jones case, but the constant demand to see what every law enforcement agency is doing.
My argument still stands. Where does the Constitution (or any other legal document) guarantee you the right to know exactly how you're being investigated? Perhaps with more relevance, what guarantees the ACLU the right to know how other people are being investigated, without being a party to that case (and without the chance for the FBI to ask to keep the details secret)?
And these people, citizens or not, still have rights. If you can't enforce the law without violating those rights - then you need to change the law.
Please tell me which Constitutional right is being violated by this redaction. The Fourth Amendment is close, but telling details of how a "search" is performed has little bearing on whether it's reasonable or not.
The are not a country at war with you and cannot be treated like enemy combatants.
Exactly. They are not a foreign nation, so they have widespread access to American infrastructure and resources. Simply having a guest list for a dinner party isn't enough to determine trust. Security measures must be appropriate for the threats at hand - no more and no less. It is ludicrous to expect a solemn oath to be an effective form of security today, and even more ludicrous to expect everyone to be subject to a full strip and cavity search to enter every public building.
In certain cases, the appropriate investigative tool may be a GPS tracker on the suspect's vehicle. That's a matter for a judge (or a judge-revokable determination of "probable cause") to decide. Once that determination of appropriateness is made, how the tracker is applied is mostly irrelevant, so long as no other rights are violated. It doesn't affect your freedom whether the tracker was attached with glue, tape, or a magnet.
But if you meant "terrists" instead of "criminals" then your case is even WEAKER. You have about a 95% higher risk of dying from SUICIDE than from a terrorist attack.
If I had meant "terrorists", I would have said so. I'm well aware of the statistics.
tl;dr - There is no freedom more essential than the right to KNOW the laws you live under.
How the FBI tracks vehicles isn't a law. You don't have to abide by FBI procedure, so no, you don't have a right to know it.
Slashdot Mirror
Damned right! Ron Paul 2016!
Yes, the $22.5 billion profit came from AIG's stock price going up, because AIG's looking like it's a viable company that's doing just fine again. No, it's not because the government's sneakily manipulating its own balance sheet (this time). AIG's stock price went up along with the whole market in general because the economy's doing better. This is a result of everything the government and private companies are doing, including stimulus, investments, and regular growth.
The AIG stock was profitable because the recovery program worked.
I'm a Michigan native (now having found greener pastures elsewhere), and can personally attest to the vital role of the auto industry. A town a few miles out from my home was one of those we're-not-really-all-farmers cities at the crossroads of two US highways. About two thirds of its workforce were employed in a single plastics factory, whose sole contract was to feed GM.
Now, that was in the southern part of the state as you noted, but still... my point is that these places do still exist, painful as they may be.
How about some actual numbers?
TARP as a whole still has $41 billion in outstanding loans. If every current loan defaulted today, TARP would only lose about $31 billion (accounting for current profits). Projections from October (which don't count AIG's sale) were that TARP would lose $24 billion overall, having disbursed over $418 billion through its lifetime. Reality is that loss was always expected, as housing assistance was not intended to be recovered. Current estimates are for a slight profit on everything intended for recovery.
The billions that will be lost went to individuals, not the banks, auto industry, or any other big company.
Except that's not really what happens at all.
Perhaps we should look back at a simpler example of companies "too big to fail" that did: Coal mines. Once upon a time, coal towns could rely on a steady stream of work for not-too-bad (for the time) pay. No, it wasn't really enough to get wealthy or pay off significant debt, but you could live and raise a family. Besides the straightforward income from mining, the whole town's economy would be fed by the coal mine, from the saloons entertaining the miners, to coaches trading goods with other towns. When the coal ran out, though, the towns often died off. Without a critical mass of commerce, the town's industries weren't self-sustaining.
Today, there are few places left that rely on a single company for their whole town's income, but they do still exist. Far more common are cities that rely on a particular sector. For example, much of rural Michigan supports the auto industry, either directly or indirectly. If the entire auto industry were to fail at once, those towns would have to rebuild their entire industry to survive - a prospect that's far beyond their budgets.
That's what "too big to fail" really is. In a recession like 2007, where entire industry sectors were near collapse, one company failing doesn't mean there's a boost for competitors. It means there's people whose jobs are gone, and nobody's hiring their experienced skills, because nobody in their industry has the financial confidence to expand into the space left by the failed company.
Government intervention in a major recession isn't "papering over" anything. It's just a promise that contracts will be fulfilled and money will continue to move, so nobody's stuck without a job or hope until their town's retooling finishes in a few decades. Where a company's failure would be instantaneous, the government's control can slow down the damage, giving those dependent areas time to react. If there's one thing the government bureaucracy does well, it's moving slowly. Meanwhile, branches can be sold off as purchasers arise and employees can train while still employed, so the overall impact is softened.
Outside of a major recession, the "too big to fail" situation usually doesn't exist. As mentioned earlier, most towns have more than a single company funding them, and most industries have viable enough competition that a single failure's employees can be absorbed by the competitors. That's also why Stallman's solution is ridiculous. When companies are too big to fail, their single-customer suppliers are too vital to fail, regardless of which division they supply. Splitting up a big company doesn't do anything to the risk, but it makes hippies happier.
...make a deal to take them over rather than them becoming worthless, and have ownership, rather than simply give money away...
How about getting into an agreement to buy 92% of outstanding stock, then selling it off later for a $22.5 billion profit?
Oh right, people complain about that, too.
Sarten-X's guide to reading legal text:
First, ignore everything. Seriously, ignore anything anybody's ever told you about the legal document, because it doesn't mean anything. The exact written words don't mean anything, nor does anything verbal spoken about the document. What matters is what a judge would think about the document and the actions people take because of it. The written words are just to clarify what the writers want a judge to think about. This is why having a lawyer read documents is so important: The lawyer understands the legal history behind the words used, and can better predict what a judge will decide.
Next, start reading. Legal texts are usually long and complex, to clarify every mundane discrepancy that might lead to a disagreement, so skip over all of that. Also skip over any section headings, because they're usually ignored by judges (and remember, it's the judges that matter), being meant only to help find useful parts of the document for particular situations. Instead, pretend you're back in primary school first learning to read. Split each sentence into its basic parts: A subject and an action. That will tell you the main meaning of the sentence. Then look for what's not included - any exceptions or omissions that might be covered in other sections of the document.
Condense any synonyms. Exact word choice can make a huge difference on a judge's decisions, so lawyers will use multiple words with the same overall meaning to give their clients options. For example, simply getting rid of paperwork at the end of its useful life might involve shredding or incinerating it, which is "destruction". If some pages get lost or forgotten during shredding, they might be considered "abandoned". If someone picks up the forgotten pages and drops them in the trash can, that's "disposal". A well-written contract would specify which of those actions are allowed and which, if any, are not. While this verbosity makes the document much clearer if a judge needs to read it, the unfortunate side effect is that the document seems repetitive on cursory review.
Finally, consider consideration. Most contracts require that each side give up something, and without that mutual concession nothing would happen. For example, I give up my legal right to the exclusivity of publishing this comment, and Slashdot's corporate overlords agree to publish it, among various other services. When reading a legal document, keep an eye out for what obligations you're agreeing to, and what the other parties are agreeing to.
That's it. That's all there is to reading legal documents. As opposed to a literary work, legal documents are written for accuracy and precision rather than ease of reading. As opposed to a computer program, they aren't so much instructions as they are suggestions to the judge. Most justice systems are based around the notion that the law describes what's right or wrong, and judges determine whether particular laws apply to particular situations.
TL;DR: If you need a TL;DR version, hire a lawyer.
2010 doesn't work fully on all browsers; just a few more. I still get pushed to use the light version with Chrome from my wife's MacBook.
It'll need extensive tweaking for each browser to manage such a complicated interface, but MS can manage that.
Right, just like OWA works fully on all browsers. After all, it's been out for a decade already and it's been redesigned several times...
Microsoft will never even try to "manage that", because it goes against Microsoft's core business model. While most companies accept that customers want tools that do the job well, Microsoft only makes tools that do the job well only when paired with other Microsoft products. This is why the term "Microsoft shop" is so much more common than an equivalent "Adobe shop" or "Oracle shop", or even an "Apple shop" - at least when referring to more than a single tool.
Despite Apple's alarming growth and nasty business tactics, I just can's seem to gather as much hatred for them as I can for Microsoft. Apple's tools are smooth. My iPad will easily work with anything else, whether it's connecting to OS X, Windows, or Linux (though Linux has some issues still). Using iTunes on Windows doesn't leave me looking for missing features, like I usually do when trying to use OWA from Chrome.
On the other hand, I expect that Office will never have an iOS app or a full WebKit-compatible interface. Microsoft can still bring its monopoly power to bear, and use its Office market share to promote its floundering Surface tablets. Some companies (probably including my current employer) will be interested in using tablets, but they need Office more than they need any feature of iOS, so they'll buy Surface tablets out of necessity, not choice.
Office documents are the last monopoly Microsoft has. Even its hold on the desktop OS market is breaking, as alternatives are becoming more viable with every new OS-agnostic cloud offering. Since Microsoft's main tactic has been to use its monopolies to force ancillary products on customers who just want things to work, I think we'll soon be seeing more extra "features" dropped into each new version of Office, just to force competitors to waste resources and maintain the all-important market share.
These researchers aren't the ones designing new technology, or indeed having any interest in it. These researchers are working on figuring out the unsolved mysteries of how the human brain works, so we can do useful things with those CPUs, network infrastructures, and compression techniques. These researchers are exploring the roots of helpful, kind, benevolent behavior, so that our future societies can encourage people to be nicer to each other, further lowering crime rates and improving the overall quality of life.
Then the nice happy people can sit back, relax, and watch streaming HD porn with their powerful computers, fast networks, and lossless compression.
Nope. It's a Unitarian Universalist church. I'm one of those "this is an interesting concept that should be discussed over one or twenty pots of coffee" nutjobs.
As a selfish volunteer, I'd wager that a good portion of those goods were donated to profit from the good feelings.
Sure, I volunteer as an audio technician to help my church and spread its message of peace, love, and happiness... but deep down I also love playing on a nice big sound rig that I didn't have to buy.
How cute. You seem to think that management gives a damn about regulations. Really, management will hear the promises of "cloud technology" and how it will lower equipment costs, reduce IT payroll, and magically keep all their data intact and accessible from anywhere, and they will never ask the whether it fits regulations, business needs, or is even possible to integrate into existing workflows.
So what you meant to say is that for the past one and a half centuries, we haven't been at risk for the exact same invasion tactic they used two centuries ago.
Amazingly, two centuries ago we weren't at risk for the kind of invasion we're vulnerable to today. Sure, the British could have invaded a single city, set off a few bombs, then boasted to the other nations that they had done so... but they'd have been mocked for having such a cowardly style, when a real invading force would send 10,000 soldiers in full regalia marching through the city streets.
Two centuries, eh? Exactly two centuries ago, in January of 1813, the United States was six months into the War of 1812. The British invaded many areas along the United States' northern border, and at times a total invasion was a plausible scenario. Then there was the Mexican-American war, the American Civil War, World War I and World War II, all of which featured several invasion attempts. Finally there's the Cold War, the very Red Dawn you refer to, during which the Soviet Union entertained several very real plans for invasion of North America.
Assuming you meant "two decades", you're still missing some key details. Two decades ago was 1993, shortly after the fall of the Soviets. That was actually one of the riskiest times for small-scale invasion, because rather than having a single powerful enemy, the United States had to shift its defense toward dozens of smaller states and groups who had access to the forgotten parts of the Soviet military. Any of them could have launched ICBM attacks against the United States, accompanied by air strikes and landing parties to claim a bit of territory. No, it wouldn't be long-lived, but it'd show the rest of the ex-Soviet states who was now the strongest.
Even now, the risk of a political-posturing invasion is very real. With enough advance planning, it's not too terribly hard for a terrorist group to effectively hold a city hostage. Nuclear materials for dirty bombs are relatively easy to acquire, though expensive. Acquiring a few offices or homes for long-term operations just requires some carefully-stolen identities and time. Finally at the right moment, a campaign of seemingly-random attacks, launched from completely ordinary places against completely ordinary civilians, can cripple the city's economy as the residents flee. The organizer can than take their place among the military powers of the world, and laugh at the American self-flagellating response.
Import legality won't really be a big issue, because Antigua would be able to determine the import laws. The United States could limit exports, but the United States has already agreed to this plan on the WTO side, and the US has enough enemies that may be willing to act as intermediaries. For the paltry sum of $21 million/year, I doubt anyone will really be able to effectively stop this.
However, note that the $21 million isn't necessarily sales, but rather copyright license fees (or at least that's what I suspect, because none of TFAs are clear on the matter). If the normal fee to the MPAA/RIAA were ten cents per item, Antigua could sell 210 million copies annually. That's a pretty reasonable amount, and does exactly what it's supposed to do: boost Antigua's economy at the United States' expense.
Unless it's a male nipple; that's fine.
Unless the male nipples light up like runway lights. That might not be fine.
I agree that the five-year-old child needs food, and will need a job eventually. Let's set your tax rate at 100%, and in 13 years force you into retirement. We can do that.
I also agree that we shouldn't have active military bases in Germany. Since you'll be out of a job in a decade or so, we'll go ahead and make plans to drop you in Europe as the sole military presence. We'll even give you an old WWII hand grenade. When the protesters in Greece or Spain decide to launch a bloody coup, you will be the one to step in to help restore peace. Good luck with that, but you can die happily knowing how much money you saved the United States!
I guess what we can also do is ignore the opinions of others and our past commitments, and just hand more pork to our favored groups. As long as everybody agrees, we can all close our eyes, stick our fingers in our ears, and push forward.
A perfect example of my point.
Gun control, abortion, climate change, fracking, hunger, and troops in Germany are all important issues to somebody. The issues rarely center around "is this a problem?" but rather "what's the best way to fix it?" and that's what nobody can ever agree on.
Sure, a five-year-old should have food, but who's going to pay for its production and transportation? Should the government pay, or should we let private charities stretch their budgets just a bit further? If it's on the government's dime, should we shut down other programs to do it? What if those other programs are also important? Surely we don't need such a silly thing as military bases in Germany?
Those bases in Germany are no longer for protection against the Kaiser, but rather are part of our NATO obligations to have rapid deployment to anywhere in the vicinity. They also serve as rest stops for troops in active deployment in the Middle East, safely outside the range of most threats. They provide a nice place for recuperation, and are also within road and rail transportation from active locations. Keeping those bases open may actually be saving money in the long run, because our air travel needs are reduced.
Unfortunately, I have yet to find any "easy" problems at the Federal level. When you think you've found one, play Devil's advocate for a moment, and think about why your solution hasn't already been done. Figure out why someone good of heart and sound of mind would oppose your plan:
As I've said many times, every issue is more complicated than everybody thinks. There is always someone on the other side on the issue, not because they're evil, but because they have a different perspective. Every politician (and, I think, most humans) would love to have every child fed, every war ended, and every wish granted... but there is rarely a clear blueprint for how to solve any of those tractable, possible problems without just making more problems for the future.
The US already has a plurality voting system. I suspect you meant "proportional representation" in which case the US would be run by 4chan. It's far easier to get a bunch of pranksters to vote in support of something silly than it is to get a bunch of serious activists to agree on the right solution to complex problems.
For example, banning fracking would protect our water supply, but doom our energy supply. Fixing energy by supporting renewable power sources threatens jobs in fossil fuel extraction and transport. Protecting employment requires supporting expansion opportunities. Fracking is an expansion opportunity.
Everything is more complex than everyone thinks. Changing voting systems will not settle more disputes. It will just transfer the disputes from discussion into law, so problems are even harder to fix and people will (rightfully) have even less faith in the government.
The architect doesn't build the building - he designs it. This architect has worked out the engineering and structural complications of making a usable modern building from what are effectively giant jigsaw puzzle pieces. Now someone else would have to acquire the materials, buy the land, and actually assemble the thing. Whoever's actually going to own the building will decide what to do with it. It might be an office, or maybe an art museum, or perhaps just "a garage or something", but it's not the architect's choice.
Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 3. The Constitution allows Congress to regulate commerce among the states, with no stated restrictions. This is the biggest source of Congress' power, including the power to form the Department of Justice in 1870, which formed the FBI in the early 20th century.
The usual test for validity is whether Congress' actions have a cumulative effect on the economy of the states. Given the FBI's budget and employment, it looks like they'd pass that test.
The FBI is still required to have probable cause to conduct a "search", but as per my other post, not everything investigative is a search.
Ah, but now there's the questions of what a "search" actually is, what "unreasonable" actually is, what "probable cause" actually is, and how specific "particularly describing" must be.
The first one's the real problem, because the SCOTUS has determined that several things are not searches, primarily things that aren't the subject's own property. If one's not being searched (or having property seized), the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply. Even if there is a warrant, the Fourth Amendment doesn't require that the warrant be public knowledge, or even revealed to the subject (in some cases).
So while it's real easy to think that any kind of surveillance is a search, the reality is much more complicated. There's a fine balance between the freedom of citizens and impeding enforcement, and finding that balance is an ongoing task.
Okay... so in short - you didn't even read the fucking summary ?!?!?
That's a rather interesting argument, since the case details aren't even in the summary. I actually read the article, which was also pretty sparse on details, so I made a post that's not really even about the Jones case, but the constant demand to see what every law enforcement agency is doing.
My argument still stands. Where does the Constitution (or any other legal document) guarantee you the right to know exactly how you're being investigated? Perhaps with more relevance, what guarantees the ACLU the right to know how other people are being investigated, without being a party to that case (and without the chance for the FBI to ask to keep the details secret)?
And these people, citizens or not, still have rights. If you can't enforce the law without violating those rights - then you need to change the law.
Please tell me which Constitutional right is being violated by this redaction. The Fourth Amendment is close, but telling details of how a "search" is performed has little bearing on whether it's reasonable or not.
The are not a country at war with you and cannot be treated like enemy combatants.
Exactly. They are not a foreign nation, so they have widespread access to American infrastructure and resources. Simply having a guest list for a dinner party isn't enough to determine trust. Security measures must be appropriate for the threats at hand - no more and no less. It is ludicrous to expect a solemn oath to be an effective form of security today, and even more ludicrous to expect everyone to be subject to a full strip and cavity search to enter every public building.
In certain cases, the appropriate investigative tool may be a GPS tracker on the suspect's vehicle. That's a matter for a judge (or a judge-revokable determination of "probable cause") to decide. Once that determination of appropriateness is made, how the tracker is applied is mostly irrelevant, so long as no other rights are violated. It doesn't affect your freedom whether the tracker was attached with glue, tape, or a magnet.
But if you meant "terrists" instead of "criminals" then your case is even WEAKER. You have about a 95% higher risk of dying from SUICIDE than from a terrorist attack.
If I had meant "terrorists", I would have said so. I'm well aware of the statistics.
tl;dr - There is no freedom more essential than the right to KNOW the laws you live under.
How the FBI tracks vehicles isn't a law. You don't have to abide by FBI procedure, so no, you don't have a right to know it.