From TFA it appears the participants were administered the shock before being placed in isolation. They all said they would pay money to avoid being shocked again. I believe they were also informed that pressing the button would give them that same shock.
Those who never had a job aren't getting free health care, they're paying for it by not having a job and access to greater disposable income with which to improve their livelyhood.
Sort of. Let's assume the condition that you are attempt to infer whether or not your existed is inside a deception or not. You know you think so you are capable of affirming your own existence. Note that this affirmation needs to be accomplished without any external stimuli so no senses. From that root you can then establish the criteria and basis by which you determine something's existence. However that doesn't answer the question on whether these other things actually exist, it only answers the question on whether they exist to your perceptions and interactions. It's a fine distinction and it only really matters in philosophy. For example, I could construct the following criteria for what exists... "If I can touch it with my index finger then it exists." It's rudimentary but if all my senses are being fulled and the sense of touching the object is simulated for me then all I have proven is that object exists by my definition and not that it exists. Does it matter if I'm right? Not really unless you love going through existential crises on a regular basis.
I'm not saying Descartes is right, merely that the foundation for his application of existence makes it very difficult to validate the existence of anything but your thoughts.
My delivery was shit. I used "aspected" when I should have used "aspects". I heavily dislike Wickard v. Filburn but knowing it was one of those reasons why I knew the individual mandate of the ACA would be upheld while I secretly wished it wouldn't. It's the whole 'non-participation in a market is participation and therefore subject to regulation' argument all over.
Saying I heavily dislike Wickard v. Filburn is a great understatement because of all the SCOTUS decisions I've ever read, I would rank it as the single worst decision that's come out of the court because it was decision that truly permitted the gross expansion of the government under the commerce clause.
In the US the draft during world war 2 was 18-36 with voluntary enlistment suspended. They drafted 10 million over the course of the war. So it was approximately 7.5% of the 1942 population.
I was using airline as a proxy for a demonstration of some of the aspects of a good under which interstate might still not fall. I don't think any tests have been applied but I'm trying to come up with cases under which maybe the interstate commerce clause would not applied based on the current judicial interpretation. Basically, it falls down to the following three criteria.
1. The good is only produced in one state. 2. The good is sufficiently different from other interstate goods that it can reasonably be construed as a unique market. 3. The good is only sold to customers in that state.
I think it's #1/2 where it breaks down most often whereas #3 is something you would willingly violate. Even if you only sell within the state there are usually some other competitor selling a similar or comparable good and I think that trips into the aspects of Wickard v. Filburn since that company is offering a competitive product to the stuff that is already in an interstate market. I think maybe a newly patented invention that is drastically different from anything else would potentially meet the criteria. A better candidate to test with would be a raw material that is geographically sensitive but even then it would need to be a drastically different product. Like a wild rodent only present in Wyoming and captured and sold as a pet to people in Wyoming may not qualify because it's not likely sufficiently different from a hamster or gerbil and consequently is competing with them.
I hate Wickard v. Filburn with a passion because it's absurd that producing for self consumption should ever be able to be regulated as interstate commerce. It's also the case that I feel is the root for basically permitting many of the federal government's encroachments.
There is a very limited number of games which fall under the e-sport mantle. An athletic scholarship isn't one because you play some sport, it's a scholarship because you're playing some sport for the college. Your performance is a way for the college to get their name and recognition out there. If they're going to offer a scholarship for a game, any time you're playing it it will be branded as part of the college and it's going to need a sufficient audience to justify it.
I don't agree with the Wickard vs Filburn ruling, I'm just stating what it effectively means. That's why I used the term fungible when talking about a flight. A flight between Sacramento and Los Angelas is not the same as a flight between Houston and Dallas. You can't substitute one with the other and you taking the Sacramento-LA flight isn't, at least directly, impacting the Dallas-Houston flight. Now, aspected involved in making that flight perhaps are more fungible and would cover interstate commerce. Things like fuel or time/slots at an airport but as long as you talk about a flight at the macro level it works as an example.
The fact that growing your own grain is interstate commerce is not so much that you're interacting with someone that might have some tangentially interstate linkage but rather that the product you aren't purchasing is a fungible good in an interstate market. When you grow your own grain, you're not buying from the market and thus you're affecting it by creating lower demand. On the same note, you also not engaging in the grain market by not putting your grain for sale.
It's stupid. Whether or not something is interstate commerce should really only depend on the direct transaction.
Flying within your own state might be one of the few ways in which someone can engage in commerce that isn't classified as interstate and that's because the product is not readily fungible. On the other hand, if I buy grain from a farmer next door or even grow it myself, I'm still participating in interstate commerce and there subject to any and all regulations governing interstate commerce.
The difficulty with anonymous cowards is knowing when one is the same person. The coward to which Chrisq was responding was appeal to Descartes. The problem with Descartes is that you can only prove your own existence to yourself. In the event of some higher power deceiving you, the only proof you have is of your own existence. So even though you and others say that there's no evidence that I'm existing in a dream or simulation there's no way for me to verify their existence.
If you read about Netflix's OpenConnect program you will see that they recommend deploying their appliance in conjunction with the direct peering portion of OpenConnect. In other words, Netflix wants ISPs to host their equipment and agree to a no cost direct peering agreement with the program. The latter of which, due to the inordinate amount of traffic going one way over the other, would normally force Netflix to pay for.
All the merits of the program are for Netflix with practically none for the ISP and its customers. Netflix gets the appliance in the network, which reduces their bandwidth costs by not having them push traffic out and since it's a peered connection the drive their bandwidth costs down to wholesale levels rather than having to work through another interconnet like L3 or Cogent.
I don't see how the appliance provides any improvement for the customers that the direct peer agreement doesn't already provide by eliminating the traffic coming in over a congested port.
Net Neutrality is not about the mundane nuts and bolts of "how it works". The real "neutrality" issue here is content not routing.
The nuts and bolts do matter because every time someone brings up some alleged "smoking gun" that the ISPs are filtering content beyond what is required by law they are continually making mistakes precisely because of the nuts and bolts of "how it works". OH MY GOD! NETFLIX ISN'T DEGRADED VIA VPN SO COMCAST IS FILTERING STUFF FROM NETFLIX. Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Netflix is continuing to knowingly saturate its Cogent link instead of it's relatively uncongested L3 link and the VPN is passing across a different uncongested interconnect.
FFS, even Level 3 is engaging in double talk by bitching about Cogent pushing more traffic across L3 than the inverse and terminating the peering in favor of Cogent paying them. Then they turn around and do the exact same shenanigans with Comcast. They're sending more to Comcast than Comcast sends to them and they have the hypocritical gall to suggest they shouldn't pay Comcast anything.
Um yes, that's one of the things I pointed out, namely that Google does do this exact sort of thing with Comcast that Netflix is claiming Netflix won't do. Why is it that Google isn't bitching about it?
You do know that one of the apparent criteria for Netflix to consider you practicing NN is to host their CDN appliance inside your network at no cost to Netflix and all the cost to you, right?
Slashdot Mirror
EIA's 2019 LCOE forecast. Ordered from cheapest to most expensive.
Source: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/a...
44.5 : Subsidized Geothermal
47.9 : Geothermal
64.4 : Advanced Natural Gas
66.3 : Conventional Natural Gas
80.3 : Wind
84.5 : Hydro
86.1 : Subsidized Advanced Nuclear
91.3 : Advanced Natural Gas with CCS
95.6 : Conventional Coal
96.1 : Advanced Nuclear
102.6 : Biomass
103.8 : Advanced Natural Gas Turbine
115.9 : Integrated Coal-Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)
118.6 : Subsidized Solar PV
128.4 : Conventional Natural Gas Turbine
130.0 : Solar PV
147.4 : IGCC with CCS
204.1 : Wind-Offshore
223.6 : Subsidized Solar Thermal
243.1 : Solar Thermal
That does make your post quite hilarious.
What's "aay"?
From TFA it appears the participants were administered the shock before being placed in isolation. They all said they would pay money to avoid being shocked again. I believe they were also informed that pressing the button would give them that same shock.
I love Jesuits. They're pretty awesome.
Sex symbol.
Like Henry Kissinger.
I don't get how the term teabagger is an insult. A teabagger, as in someone who teabags is rubbing salt in the wound after owning you.
Those who never had a job aren't getting free health care, they're paying for it by not having a job and access to greater disposable income with which to improve their livelyhood.
Australia has plenty of pollinating insects but they have short tongues and can't easily get into those deep European flowers.
My mind wandered off topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
It's been going on since 1942.
The top five things women judge each other on when they first meet.
#5 - Their boobs.
#4 - Their ring.
#3 - Their weight.
#2 - Their purse.
#1 - Their hair.
Sort of. Let's assume the condition that you are attempt to infer whether or not your existed is inside a deception or not. You know you think so you are capable of affirming your own existence. Note that this affirmation needs to be accomplished without any external stimuli so no senses. From that root you can then establish the criteria and basis by which you determine something's existence. However that doesn't answer the question on whether these other things actually exist, it only answers the question on whether they exist to your perceptions and interactions. It's a fine distinction and it only really matters in philosophy. For example, I could construct the following criteria for what exists... "If I can touch it with my index finger then it exists." It's rudimentary but if all my senses are being fulled and the sense of touching the object is simulated for me then all I have proven is that object exists by my definition and not that it exists. Does it matter if I'm right? Not really unless you love going through existential crises on a regular basis.
I'm not saying Descartes is right, merely that the foundation for his application of existence makes it very difficult to validate the existence of anything but your thoughts.
My delivery was shit. I used "aspected" when I should have used "aspects". I heavily dislike Wickard v. Filburn but knowing it was one of those reasons why I knew the individual mandate of the ACA would be upheld while I secretly wished it wouldn't. It's the whole 'non-participation in a market is participation and therefore subject to regulation' argument all over.
Saying I heavily dislike Wickard v. Filburn is a great understatement because of all the SCOTUS decisions I've ever read, I would rank it as the single worst decision that's come out of the court because it was decision that truly permitted the gross expansion of the government under the commerce clause.
In the US the draft during world war 2 was 18-36 with voluntary enlistment suspended. They drafted 10 million over the course of the war. So it was approximately 7.5% of the 1942 population.
I was using airline as a proxy for a demonstration of some of the aspects of a good under which interstate might still not fall. I don't think any tests have been applied but I'm trying to come up with cases under which maybe the interstate commerce clause would not applied based on the current judicial interpretation. Basically, it falls down to the following three criteria.
1. The good is only produced in one state.
2. The good is sufficiently different from other interstate goods that it can reasonably be construed as a unique market.
3. The good is only sold to customers in that state.
I think it's #1/2 where it breaks down most often whereas #3 is something you would willingly violate. Even if you only sell within the state there are usually some other competitor selling a similar or comparable good and I think that trips into the aspects of Wickard v. Filburn since that company is offering a competitive product to the stuff that is already in an interstate market. I think maybe a newly patented invention that is drastically different from anything else would potentially meet the criteria. A better candidate to test with would be a raw material that is geographically sensitive but even then it would need to be a drastically different product. Like a wild rodent only present in Wyoming and captured and sold as a pet to people in Wyoming may not qualify because it's not likely sufficiently different from a hamster or gerbil and consequently is competing with them.
I hate Wickard v. Filburn with a passion because it's absurd that producing for self consumption should ever be able to be regulated as interstate commerce. It's also the case that I feel is the root for basically permitting many of the federal government's encroachments.
goes on a yearly baby seal clubbing expedition!
There's people that don't?
If you have a shiny metal ass, I can only assume that torturing kittens and setting fire to orphanages is something you would do.
There is a very limited number of games which fall under the e-sport mantle. An athletic scholarship isn't one because you play some sport, it's a scholarship because you're playing some sport for the college. Your performance is a way for the college to get their name and recognition out there. If they're going to offer a scholarship for a game, any time you're playing it it will be branded as part of the college and it's going to need a sufficient audience to justify it.
I don't agree with the Wickard vs Filburn ruling, I'm just stating what it effectively means. That's why I used the term fungible when talking about a flight. A flight between Sacramento and Los Angelas is not the same as a flight between Houston and Dallas. You can't substitute one with the other and you taking the Sacramento-LA flight isn't, at least directly, impacting the Dallas-Houston flight. Now, aspected involved in making that flight perhaps are more fungible and would cover interstate commerce. Things like fuel or time/slots at an airport but as long as you talk about a flight at the macro level it works as an example.
The fact that growing your own grain is interstate commerce is not so much that you're interacting with someone that might have some tangentially interstate linkage but rather that the product you aren't purchasing is a fungible good in an interstate market. When you grow your own grain, you're not buying from the market and thus you're affecting it by creating lower demand. On the same note, you also not engaging in the grain market by not putting your grain for sale.
It's stupid. Whether or not something is interstate commerce should really only depend on the direct transaction.
Flying within your own state might be one of the few ways in which someone can engage in commerce that isn't classified as interstate and that's because the product is not readily fungible. On the other hand, if I buy grain from a farmer next door or even grow it myself, I'm still participating in interstate commerce and there subject to any and all regulations governing interstate commerce.
The difficulty with anonymous cowards is knowing when one is the same person. The coward to which Chrisq was responding was appeal to Descartes. The problem with Descartes is that you can only prove your own existence to yourself. In the event of some higher power deceiving you, the only proof you have is of your own existence. So even though you and others say that there's no evidence that I'm existing in a dream or simulation there's no way for me to verify their existence.
If you read about Netflix's OpenConnect program you will see that they recommend deploying their appliance in conjunction with the direct peering portion of OpenConnect. In other words, Netflix wants ISPs to host their equipment and agree to a no cost direct peering agreement with the program. The latter of which, due to the inordinate amount of traffic going one way over the other, would normally force Netflix to pay for.
All the merits of the program are for Netflix with practically none for the ISP and its customers. Netflix gets the appliance in the network, which reduces their bandwidth costs by not having them push traffic out and since it's a peered connection the drive their bandwidth costs down to wholesale levels rather than having to work through another interconnet like L3 or Cogent.
I don't see how the appliance provides any improvement for the customers that the direct peer agreement doesn't already provide by eliminating the traffic coming in over a congested port.
Net Neutrality is not about the mundane nuts and bolts of "how it works". The real "neutrality" issue here is content not routing.
The nuts and bolts do matter because every time someone brings up some alleged "smoking gun" that the ISPs are filtering content beyond what is required by law they are continually making mistakes precisely because of the nuts and bolts of "how it works". OH MY GOD! NETFLIX ISN'T DEGRADED VIA VPN SO COMCAST IS FILTERING STUFF FROM NETFLIX. Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Netflix is continuing to knowingly saturate its Cogent link instead of it's relatively uncongested L3 link and the VPN is passing across a different uncongested interconnect.
FFS, even Level 3 is engaging in double talk by bitching about Cogent pushing more traffic across L3 than the inverse and terminating the peering in favor of Cogent paying them. Then they turn around and do the exact same shenanigans with Comcast. They're sending more to Comcast than Comcast sends to them and they have the hypocritical gall to suggest they shouldn't pay Comcast anything.
Um yes, that's one of the things I pointed out, namely that Google does do this exact sort of thing with Comcast that Netflix is claiming Netflix won't do. Why is it that Google isn't bitching about it?
You do know that one of the apparent criteria for Netflix to consider you practicing NN is to host their CDN appliance inside your network at no cost to Netflix and all the cost to you, right?
Quick! Revive Reagan! We must stop the North Pole from defecting to the Soviets!