Just because that's the price the FBI paid doesn't mean your girlfriend would have to pay the same price. The government has been known, from time to time, to overpay for things.
I was being a bit flippant, but I think this is just a quibble. Well regulated meant that they were trained, prepared, supplied and ready to fight. "Shoot straight" wouldn't have been the dictionary definition, but that's what it boils down to.
"[A citizenry that is ready and capable of using their own guns] being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This is the only logical reading of the second amendment.
"[Citizens that are controlled, supervised, and follow all the rules imposed by the government] being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the [army] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is self-contradictory and nonsensical.
Yes, in the mid- to late- 1700s, "well regulated" meant they could shoot straight. The necessity of such a militia was NOT meant to protect our liberties from foreign attack (the government has a military and the idea of needing a constitutional amendment forbidding the government from taking it's OWN guns away is laughable). Rather the goal was to preserve the right to revolt.
In 1776, regulation most definitely did NOT mean "controlled by the government." You did not need a license to practice medicine, much less sell lemonade or pretty much any business activity. You didn't need to get a permit to burn your trash or permission ride a horse. Governments were not about setting prices, insuring safety, or controlling who could perform what job. In fact, the first modem government regulations didn't come until the "robber barons" started colluding on prices for railroad hauls. They had the audacity to charge a higher price based on demand for a route rather than just charging by the mile. The ICC was formed to bust this oligopoly. The first commissioner just so happened to have been a lawyer for the railroads (who else would know enough about their business), and his first act was to set uniform pricing (at the higher rate). The oligopoly finally had a way to enforce their pricing without the possibility of defectors or cheaters. And thus the modern era of regulation began.
That's all true and not even disputed in the paper (which is linked in the article). The paper doesn't argue that all universal search results are bad for consumers, and some definitely are better. What's at issue is "local" search, like looking for a doctor in your city. In this case, there isn't one correct "answer," there are a bunch of them. And what you probably want are doctors with lots of good reviews. Instead, you get doctors with fewer reviews who happen to also have google+ pages.
2.a. Payment is handled via Uber, not the driver, and price is agreed ahead of time. No possibility for hidden charges, unapproved charges, sightseeing tours, etc.
2.b) Pricing Standardization. Ever been in a DC Taxi before they installed meters? They had a "zone" system and your rate was based on how many zones you crossed. Not familiar with the city? Good luck figuring it out. Every city has its own quirks and pricing games. With Uber, you know exactly what you're going to pay and how the transaction will be handled.
5) Convenience. No standing on the corner waiving your hands in the air. In a strange city where cabs aren't everywhere? How do you call one? How long will it take? Where are they? With Uber, you'll see where your cab is while it's on route and know exactly when they'll arrive.
RTFA: "FCC requirements ban requiring a customer to consent to receive autodialed or prerecorded telemarketing or advertising calls as a condition of a purchase..."
The puppy housetraining in the book was a flashback to his Moral Philosophy teacher explaining why the old civilzation collapsed (namely, because parents stopped spanking their children). Apparently, the "scientfiically verifiable theory of morals" (exact phrase from the book) proves that the way to keep society from collapsing is through corporal punishment in schools and public flogging, just like there is NO way to housetrain a puppy without hitting it.
The first movie originated from an unrelated script (about fighting space spiders). They later got rights to Starship Troopers and basically retrofit the character names and a few other things into the story.
I was a regular user on groklaw as well. She quit because she was a private person and email was no longer private. You may be able to protect the contents of your email by encrypting it (assuming that the encryption hasn't been intentionally compromised, which is NOT a safe assumption), but that doesn't encrypt the "From/To" fields. PJ quit the internet (not just groklaw) because she's a private person who didn't want to be watched.
You have your view, I have mine. Everyone else can read what she wrote and decide for themselves.
You claim you can "just encrypt" your email, but it was the creator of lavabit, the "secure" email system that Snowden used, who stated essentially that email can NOT be made secure. It's not just a technology problem. When Secret Courts tell citizens they can't talk about Secret Orders, "encryption" isn't the solution. It's not just what you're saying, but with whom your talking to (e.g. metadata).
You may not agree with that, but you can't declare that no one else can believe it. You can read PJ's statement for yourself. You may not believe her, but you can't look into her heart and know that the reason she gave wasn't sincere:
My personal decision is to get off of the Internet to the degree it's possible. I'm just an ordinary person. But I really know, after all my research and some serious thinking things through, that I can't stay online personally without losing my humanness, now that I know that ensuring privacy online is impossible. I find myself unable to write. I've always been a private person. That's why I never wanted to be a celebrity and why I fought hard to maintain both my privacy and yours.
The Committee's Study outlined 20 specific cases that the CIA claimed either solely based on EIT (torture) or thwarted attacks. In ALL cases, there was either other corroborating intelligence (so they didn't need to torture anyone) or that the "attacks" were either fantasies or non-operational.
Brennan's statement doesn't actually refute this. Providing intelligence that "helped" is not the same as intelligence that was critical.
I'm not arguing with the advice, I'm arguing with the notion that there are only a few bad cops. There are criminal cops and there are cops that tolerate criminal cops, which makes them no better.
So some of his co-workers are psychotic murderers, but the rest of the cops are "great guys" who won't kill you themselves, but they will definitely help cover up your murder. I'm sorry, but if you know your co-worker is a murderer, you're not a "great guy" if you aren't trying to stop him.
From TFA: "Barr answered 'no' when asked if she had ever been a member of an organization 'dedicated to the use of violence' to overthrow the U.S. government or to prevent others from exercising their constitutional rights."
They didn't ask her if she "belonged to a group that may have been in some way affiliated with another group, some of whose members may have advocated the violent overthrow of the US." If you ask it that way, anyway that has ever joined the NRA might want to consider how they should answer.
It's also pretty weird that a country that includes a right to bear arms to forbid membership of groups that might advocate using that right. The right to bear arms isn't about hunting or even fighting off foreign invaders, it's about overthrowing tyrannical governments. If the founding fathers thought elections were all that were ever needed to defend against tyranny, then the 2nd amendment would make no sense.
It's a water heater, not a laundry machine. If the pilot won't stay lit, there's basically two parts that could have failed: the thermopile and the gas valve. Each can be carried in one hand.
Either way, I told them the diagnostic code when I called, so they already knew exactly which part had failed. They were servicing a warranty for a unit just over a year old. It's a current model and they knew the exact serial number of the unit before they dispatched anyone.
I've actually been shopping for other appliances recently and been asking more closely about their service standards. It seems to be common knowledge amongst their competitors that Sears generally doesn't carry parts on their while most others actually do.
The thermopile on my 16 month old hot water heater broke down on a Friday morning. The parts are still under warranty, but not labor.
I called Sears service (the warranter), told them the diagnostic code indicated the exact problem, and scheduled service (earliest available was Saturday). The tech arrived, looked at the same double-blink light pattern that I saw, and agreed that the thermopile needed to be replaced. He didn't, however, carry that part on his truck, so he had to "overnight" order it.
An "overnight" order on Saturday actually means it gets ordered on Monday and delivered on Tuesday. They ship it directly to the customer's home, which means they won't schedule the next appointment until after I call to confirm that the part has arrived. They won't come on the same day, so essentially "overnight" on Saturday means we'll see you in some 5-hour window on Wednesday.
I know I'll never order from Sears again (other service companies carry parts on their trucks), but I hadn't thought of just making it illegal to provide bad service...
Every time it snows, deniers claim "see, there's no global warming" and believers say "weather is not climate!" The summary of this article then uses the past three months and declares it proof of climate change.
I realize that the actual article is more subtle, but I believe the point OP is making was that if you don't want "Polar Vortex" to be used as an argument against climate change, you probably shouldn't use "heat wave" as an argument in favor.
Taken as a whole, the trend is clear. Leading with a headline "last three months hottest ever" is only going to remind people in DC that they just experienced the coldest winter in 20 years and the most snow ever recorded.
Not exactly. Every lower court agreed entirely with Aero. It was only the Supreme Court that said "You look like a cable company, so the copyright that was written just for cable companies applies to you."
Does he follow a checklist? Is there anything vague or undefined on the checklist? Is he regularly expected to have his judgements second guessed? Was he trained by a professional organization of inspectors, or was he just told one day to create the inspection industry?
But meat inspection includes objective measures (as I already said). There's also no penalty for overblocking, but significant costs if they miss even one block. Meat inspection is well regulated with documented procedures handed down by regulatory bodies, but you insist that Google write all their own rules and procedures and have no forgiveness if they get anything wrong (apparently in either direction).
Isn't "meat inspector" a job of the government, paid for by taxes? The EU didn't provide Google with a "forgotten person" inspector. When it comes to meat, there are clearly objective measurements to determine when it has gone bad. There are no objective criteria handed down to determine when this right applies and when it doesn't. You're asking a for-profit company to personally be responsible for the cost of evaluating every case before them. In fact, you don't even know whether or not they did evaluate this? Given their precedent setting loss, it's not unreasonable to assume that they've set the threshold higher than maybe you would have.
If you were to ask me, the only objective criteria should be as simple as "Was the event newsworthy?" (Yes, because it appeared in the news.) But that's clearly not enough. The information is still allowed to exist, so it's not libelous and the information itself is not illegal, only linking to it is. There is no "registered famous/public person" database (or even a definition of a "public" person). The problem is that you can't just smell this meat and decide if it's gone bad. Now, Google could decide, on its own, to declare that this particular case doesn't pass the undefined threshold, but they have to take on all the expense and risk.
You've come along and demanded that Google toss out all the bad meat (without defining it), and NOW you're complaining when they find it easier to also throw out some good meat. Everyone told you that's what they'd do. It's the ONLY sensible course of action.
And did the EU court also volunteer to review every case and cover the expenses for these reviews? Obviously not, which is the reason most observers predicted EXACTLY this outcome.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because that's the price the FBI paid doesn't mean your girlfriend would have to pay the same price. The government has been known, from time to time, to overpay for things.
I was being a bit flippant, but I think this is just a quibble. Well regulated meant that they were trained, prepared, supplied and ready to fight. "Shoot straight" wouldn't have been the dictionary definition, but that's what it boils down to.
"[A citizenry that is ready and capable of using their own guns] being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This is the only logical reading of the second amendment.
"[Citizens that are controlled, supervised, and follow all the rules imposed by the government] being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the [army] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is self-contradictory and nonsensical.
Yes, in the mid- to late- 1700s, "well regulated" meant they could shoot straight. The necessity of such a militia was NOT meant to protect our liberties from foreign attack (the government has a military and the idea of needing a constitutional amendment forbidding the government from taking it's OWN guns away is laughable). Rather the goal was to preserve the right to revolt.
In 1776, regulation most definitely did NOT mean "controlled by the government." You did not need a license to practice medicine, much less sell lemonade or pretty much any business activity. You didn't need to get a permit to burn your trash or permission ride a horse. Governments were not about setting prices, insuring safety, or controlling who could perform what job. In fact, the first modem government regulations didn't come until the "robber barons" started colluding on prices for railroad hauls. They had the audacity to charge a higher price based on demand for a route rather than just charging by the mile. The ICC was formed to bust this oligopoly. The first commissioner just so happened to have been a lawyer for the railroads (who else would know enough about their business), and his first act was to set uniform pricing (at the higher rate). The oligopoly finally had a way to enforce their pricing without the possibility of defectors or cheaters. And thus the modern era of regulation began.
And they DON'T serve ads on school accounts.
That's all true and not even disputed in the paper (which is linked in the article). The paper doesn't argue that all universal search results are bad for consumers, and some definitely are better. What's at issue is "local" search, like looking for a doctor in your city. In this case, there isn't one correct "answer," there are a bunch of them. And what you probably want are doctors with lots of good reviews. Instead, you get doctors with fewer reviews who happen to also have google+ pages.
> 2) Ease of Payment
2.a. Payment is handled via Uber, not the driver, and price is agreed ahead of time. No possibility for hidden charges, unapproved charges, sightseeing tours, etc.
2.b) Pricing Standardization. Ever been in a DC Taxi before they installed meters? They had a "zone" system and your rate was based on how many zones you crossed. Not familiar with the city? Good luck figuring it out. Every city has its own quirks and pricing games. With Uber, you know exactly what you're going to pay and how the transaction will be handled.
5) Convenience. No standing on the corner waiving your hands in the air. In a strange city where cabs aren't everywhere? How do you call one? How long will it take? Where are they? With Uber, you'll see where your cab is while it's on route and know exactly when they'll arrive.
RTFA: "FCC requirements ban requiring a customer to consent to receive autodialed or prerecorded telemarketing or advertising calls as a condition of a purchase..."
The puppy housetraining in the book was a flashback to his Moral Philosophy teacher explaining why the old civilzation collapsed (namely, because parents stopped spanking their children). Apparently, the "scientfiically verifiable theory of morals" (exact phrase from the book) proves that the way to keep society from collapsing is through corporal punishment in schools and public flogging, just like there is NO way to housetrain a puppy without hitting it.
The first movie originated from an unrelated script (about fighting space spiders). They later got rights to Starship Troopers and basically retrofit the character names and a few other things into the story.
I was a regular user on groklaw as well. She quit because she was a private person and email was no longer private. You may be able to protect the contents of your email by encrypting it (assuming that the encryption hasn't been intentionally compromised, which is NOT a safe assumption), but that doesn't encrypt the "From/To" fields. PJ quit the internet (not just groklaw) because she's a private person who didn't want to be watched.
You have your view, I have mine. Everyone else can read what she wrote and decide for themselves.
You claim you can "just encrypt" your email, but it was the creator of lavabit, the "secure" email system that Snowden used, who stated essentially that email can NOT be made secure. It's not just a technology problem. When Secret Courts tell citizens they can't talk about Secret Orders, "encryption" isn't the solution. It's not just what you're saying, but with whom your talking to (e.g. metadata).
You may not agree with that, but you can't declare that no one else can believe it. You can read PJ's statement for yourself. You may not believe her, but you can't look into her heart and know that the reason she gave wasn't sincere:
It's a soft G: "Bee-Pej".
The Committee's Study outlined 20 specific cases that the CIA claimed either solely based on EIT (torture) or thwarted attacks. In ALL cases, there was either other corroborating intelligence (so they didn't need to torture anyone) or that the "attacks" were either fantasies or non-operational.
Brennan's statement doesn't actually refute this. Providing intelligence that "helped" is not the same as intelligence that was critical.
I'm not arguing with the advice, I'm arguing with the notion that there are only a few bad cops. There are criminal cops and there are cops that tolerate criminal cops, which makes them no better.
So some of his co-workers are psychotic murderers, but the rest of the cops are "great guys" who won't kill you themselves, but they will definitely help cover up your murder. I'm sorry, but if you know your co-worker is a murderer, you're not a "great guy" if you aren't trying to stop him.
From TFA: "Barr answered 'no' when asked if she had ever been a member of an organization 'dedicated to the use of violence' to overthrow the U.S. government or to prevent others from exercising their constitutional rights."
They didn't ask her if she "belonged to a group that may have been in some way affiliated with another group, some of whose members may have advocated the violent overthrow of the US." If you ask it that way, anyway that has ever joined the NRA might want to consider how they should answer.
It's also pretty weird that a country that includes a right to bear arms to forbid membership of groups that might advocate using that right. The right to bear arms isn't about hunting or even fighting off foreign invaders, it's about overthrowing tyrannical governments. If the founding fathers thought elections were all that were ever needed to defend against tyranny, then the 2nd amendment would make no sense.
It's a water heater, not a laundry machine. If the pilot won't stay lit, there's basically two parts that could have failed: the thermopile and the gas valve. Each can be carried in one hand.
Either way, I told them the diagnostic code when I called, so they already knew exactly which part had failed. They were servicing a warranty for a unit just over a year old. It's a current model and they knew the exact serial number of the unit before they dispatched anyone.
I've actually been shopping for other appliances recently and been asking more closely about their service standards. It seems to be common knowledge amongst their competitors that Sears generally doesn't carry parts on their while most others actually do.
The thermopile on my 16 month old hot water heater broke down on a Friday morning. The parts are still under warranty, but not labor.
I called Sears service (the warranter), told them the diagnostic code indicated the exact problem, and scheduled service (earliest available was Saturday). The tech arrived, looked at the same double-blink light pattern that I saw, and agreed that the thermopile needed to be replaced. He didn't, however, carry that part on his truck, so he had to "overnight" order it.
An "overnight" order on Saturday actually means it gets ordered on Monday and delivered on Tuesday. They ship it directly to the customer's home, which means they won't schedule the next appointment until after I call to confirm that the part has arrived. They won't come on the same day, so essentially "overnight" on Saturday means we'll see you in some 5-hour window on Wednesday.
I know I'll never order from Sears again (other service companies carry parts on their trucks), but I hadn't thought of just making it illegal to provide bad service...
Every time it snows, deniers claim "see, there's no global warming" and believers say "weather is not climate!" The summary of this article then uses the past three months and declares it proof of climate change.
I realize that the actual article is more subtle, but I believe the point OP is making was that if you don't want "Polar Vortex" to be used as an argument against climate change, you probably shouldn't use "heat wave" as an argument in favor.
Taken as a whole, the trend is clear. Leading with a headline "last three months hottest ever" is only going to remind people in DC that they just experienced the coldest winter in 20 years and the most snow ever recorded.
> Lower Courts:You're like a cable company.
Not exactly. Every lower court agreed entirely with Aero. It was only the Supreme Court that said "You look like a cable company, so the copyright that was written just for cable companies applies to you."
Does he follow a checklist? Is there anything vague or undefined on the checklist? Is he regularly expected to have his judgements second guessed? Was he trained by a professional organization of inspectors, or was he just told one day to create the inspection industry?
But meat inspection includes objective measures (as I already said). There's also no penalty for overblocking, but significant costs if they miss even one block. Meat inspection is well regulated with documented procedures handed down by regulatory bodies, but you insist that Google write all their own rules and procedures and have no forgiveness if they get anything wrong (apparently in either direction).
Isn't "meat inspector" a job of the government, paid for by taxes? The EU didn't provide Google with a "forgotten person" inspector. When it comes to meat, there are clearly objective measurements to determine when it has gone bad. There are no objective criteria handed down to determine when this right applies and when it doesn't. You're asking a for-profit company to personally be responsible for the cost of evaluating every case before them. In fact, you don't even know whether or not they did evaluate this? Given their precedent setting loss, it's not unreasonable to assume that they've set the threshold higher than maybe you would have.
If you were to ask me, the only objective criteria should be as simple as "Was the event newsworthy?" (Yes, because it appeared in the news.) But that's clearly not enough. The information is still allowed to exist, so it's not libelous and the information itself is not illegal, only linking to it is. There is no "registered famous/public person" database (or even a definition of a "public" person). The problem is that you can't just smell this meat and decide if it's gone bad. Now, Google could decide, on its own, to declare that this particular case doesn't pass the undefined threshold, but they have to take on all the expense and risk.
You've come along and demanded that Google toss out all the bad meat (without defining it), and NOW you're complaining when they find it easier to also throw out some good meat. Everyone told you that's what they'd do. It's the ONLY sensible course of action.
> explicitly made exceptions
And did the EU court also volunteer to review every case and cover the expenses for these reviews? Obviously not, which is the reason most observers predicted EXACTLY this outcome.