Yes it does. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So they are allowed to ENUMERATE for the purpose of assigning representatives in Congress. They are NOT allowed to ask personal questions about your income or how many cars you own or whatever. Your local State government may ask those questions - the U.S. government may not because it was never given the power.
>>>Don't tell the conservatives that if they would have listened to bill Clinton the debt would be mostly paid off.
Actually if you look at Bush's 2001 budget, which he projected to 2010, he DID listen to Bill Clinton. He even set-aside a "trust fund" for the surplus monies to save social security from going empty. Bush was following a plan to pay-off the national debt just as Clinton had done.
But then the New York attack happened..... oh well. I was against the war, but the American people demanded revenge, and Congress voted for it. So here we are.
It's a common misconception to say Bush was worse than Obama, but it simply isn't true. Under both Clinton and Bush the debt "only" increased ~5 trillion per year (from 1993 to 2000 and 2001 to 2008). Under Obama's existing and projected budget, the debt increased by about $25 trillion during 2009, $15 trillion in 2010, and $10 trillion for the years 2011, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Look up Obama's budget - it's there in plain balck and white.
So you see, even after the economy's projected recovery, Obama still plans to increase our national debt about two times faster than either Clinton or Bush did. Bush added about 40 trillion while Obama's projecting 80-90 trillion by 2016.
So yeah I agree Bush was an ass (I didn't vote for him), but Obama is doubly so (my humble opinion). If Obama's projection is correct, we'll have close about $200,000/home as the decade ends and that simply isn't sustainable.
>>>The extra costs will be added to everyone's bill to cover your government mandated DSL program
Only a couple pennies per month... maybe a dollar... hardly a great burden. And remember, those wires would only be run IF the customer requested it. I know several persons who are happy with their $7-10 dialup because they just use it for email to keep in contact, and have no desire to have a two-to-three times larger bill. .
>>>Your 'customer action' approach would be that everyone downgrade their service when the providers increase their charges to cover a government mandated rollout? >>>
I never said "everyone". Don't put words in my mouth.
I said the OPTION would be there. The KEY is that a customer has a power taxpayers don't. The power belongs to the people to decide, "Do I want to pay $xxx per month, or stay with dialup?" rather than in the hands of some oligarch in D.C. - Don't you believe in Democracy?
Well the ultimate democracy is the customer "voting" with his dollars whether or not to buy something. So to answer your previous question: YES being a self-ruling customer is preferred over being a tax serf. (IMHO)
>>>instead of the taxpayer paying for it via taxes, the customers will pay for it
That's right. At least as a customer, you can cancel the bill if you feel it's too high, or downgrade to a cheaper service. For example I downgraded from $60 to $15 when comcast raised their rates.
- As a customer you have power to cancel or moderate your spending. - As a taxpayer you have zero power. - I prefer the former to the latter, don't you?
This "test" is typical of government programs. Expensive, doesn't work right, and ends-up not fulfilling its promises.
Remember EZpass in 2000? When I signed-up the government told me it would save time and money. Instead of $1 for a toll, I paid 90 cents, which saved a lot of cash over a month's time. Then in 2005 they eliminated the savings, but I kept the EZpass for convenience. And now in 2010 they want me to PAY $20 more each year than the cash drivers. I'm getting rid of my EZpass. It's typical politician doubletalk where they promise "savings" and then eventually end-up costing you MORE not less, than the old cash-based system.
This FCC test is likely costing a mint, and it clearly doesn't work, and will generate bad results to justify spending billions of dollars. Plus I suspect even if it did work properly and showed less than 5% of American don't have broadband via DSL, cable, satellite, cellular, or wifi..... the politicians will still claim it justifies spending billions of OUR dollars in order to buy votes.
Yes I'm a cynic. I trust the government about as much as I trust Microsoft or Comcast. Actually - less. At least MS or CC can't force their way into my home.
Name - commodore64_love Number of residents - 3 (Thus ends the legally-allowed questions - the rest of these violate the Bill of Rights (9 and 10).) Age: I forget. Sex: I don't know what that is. Income: Too small. Insured? No and it's BY MY OWN CHOICE so STOP RAMMING IT DOWN MY THROAT. Number of cars? As many as I can afford which is more than 0 but less than 100.
>>>So your goal to make sure they don't get any stimulus money for broadband by making it appear they do?
Our national debt is nearly $130,000 per American home* and projected by Obama's budget to increase +$10,000 more each year. We. Need. To Stop. Spending. Otherwise we'll have ~$200,000/home by the end of this decade, and all go bankrupt. As Cosby might say, "C'mon people! This isn't hard to figure out."
The solution to broadband is ridiculously easy -
- Congress should mandate with a simple law that the telephone company must provide DSL to any customer requests it (within six months). The twisted-pair lines are already there, except for the need to add a neighborhood DSLAM. If Verizon/ATT/whoever balk about expense, simply point to the billions they received circa 1996 and say "use that". Actually the expense should be quite low to upgrade existing phone lines to DSL lines.
* * Simple math. Current U.S. Government Debt/100 million households.
You inadvertantly described the flaw with fuel cell cars.
You have water, and you crack it to make hydrogen, which makes the cars roll down the road. Sounds great doesn't it? But where does the energy come to crack the water? ----- Often the response is "just use solar" and that's fine, but if we have solar why not simply use the electricity directly in the car or house or other device? There's no need to add the additional water/hydrogen step.
Alternatively we could just use the same liquid fuel as we have now. Use solar electricity for everything else, but keep cars as they are now. We've got 10,000 years worth of coal laying around that could be liquefied into diesel fuel, and pumped into one of those new Volkswagen commuter cars at 250 MPG. These cars are so clean the pollutant can't be measured.
"you come across something worrisome on the internet - child pornography or extremism for example - you anonymously push the button on your browser, and the police are notified and check it out. What happened in practice though was that the button was sending not only the site in question but your recent browsing history as well"
Oh that's just great. I can hear the police officer now as he visits my home, "Thank you for reporting that child porn site. Unfortunately you also self-reported yourself to be buying illegal copies of Nintendo games on ebay, and browsing the danish site seventeen.com. You are under arrest."
>>>The problem is that a whole lot of angry men (and eager-to-please women) jumped on a reactionary "not in these-here parts" bandwagen and have deliberately misused the term to mean something it isn't. >>>
No.
We just observed the obvious - a lot of feminists are anti-male sexists who would like to see (for example) me fired and replaced with a woman. We didn't twist the definition - they did that themselves and if they don't like it, then they should act to SILENCE the male-hating feminists instead of promoting them to higher levels of power inside NOW.
You really should be careful with that paintbrush. I'm a conservative. And a Republican.
I HATE corporations - I consider them to be the second worst evil in this nation (gov't being first). Concentration of power in a few, and the laws to protect them, is a dangerous doctrine.
Without stealing, we wouldn't have many works of Shakespeare or Bach, both of whom copied liberally from their Italian counterparts. (Of course that was before copyright existed, hence plagiarism of ideas was not only legal, but accepted.)
I'm sorry. I didn't vote for him, but just as Obama duped the U.S., so too did my neighbors get duped by Rendell the Rampant Lying/Spending SOB Who Speeds down I-81 and b0irbes cops not to give him a ticket.
>>>"Secret while it's a security issue until it's fixed. Public after that."
This sounds like something Microsoft would spew..... as they sit on their asses for a year, keeping the users uninformed about a vulnerability in Internet Exploder, or Silverlight, or whatever.
I say the security issue should be open.
And whistle-blowers should be protected from being fired (especially government employees).
I see your point. On one of my many long-term business trips, I stayed in a $500/month hotel. It was a great bargain (even included free cable and internet), but it was also located right next to a large power switching station that I could hear humming every time I opened the door.
The other person made a good point about how it could be the herbicides, not the tower. That correlates with a previous Slashdot story about people complaining cell towers were making them sick, but the owner of said towers said that can't be, because they turned-off the towers 3 months earlier. So it wasn't the tower - it must have been something else.
>>>Basic analogy: If you put a translucent material in front of a lightbulb, you can see the lightbulb, but if you put metal foil, you can see around the foil. Therefor you reduce, but not eliminate your exposure. >>>
Thank you Mr. "I'm not an RF Engineer". So if I unnerstand the gist of your analogy, I can cover my telescope with tinfoil, and more effectively allow me to spy on the sorority dorm next door. I can see them, but they can't see me. Thanks!
What the heck does family income have to do with blood cell cancer? It doesn't care if you are rich or poor, and therefore there's no point for a study to "control" for it.
(steps into of a time machine) (steps out in the 1960s)
"There have been numerous studies worldwide about the effects of these cigarettes, and so far I don't think there is any proof of ill-effects. On the contrary many of our studies show cigarettes to be beneficial, and 4 out of 5 doctors agree that our brand is the best."
Perhaps towers ARE safe for most people under normal circumstances, but that doesn't mean they are always safe, especially if they are only a few feet away. Sailors in the navy are forbidden from being on the foredeck when the Aegis Radar is operating, because it will cook their bodies like a hot dog in a microwave. Antennas DO have the ability to damage human tissues, just as surely as one cigarette will not kill you, but over time the accumulated damage of repeated use means a shorter life.
>>>Every time you do you are holding the antenna of that right next to your head
Good point. A cellphone broadcasts at what? 1 watt? The tower is typically only a few microwatts (0.000001) by the time it crosses space and reaches your phone. Of course *this* tower is only a few feet away, but still it has degraded somewhat (milliwatts), so you're getting a LOT more power from the phone right next to your head.
This is why I typically keep my phone turned off. Only turn it on when I need to call, or am expecting a call. And don't put it next to my head while talking. (Oh and no I would not live to any antenna.)
Typical editors (not just here but in general). They change the words to "improve" the article or story, but then they create a logical fallacy/ plot flaw.
Slashdot Mirror
>It doesn't say they can't ask the other things
Yes it does. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So they are allowed to ENUMERATE for the purpose of assigning representatives in Congress. They are NOT allowed to ask personal questions about your income or how many cars you own or whatever. Your local State government may ask those questions - the U.S. government may not because it was never given the power.
>>>Don't tell the conservatives that if they would have listened to bill Clinton the debt would be mostly paid off.
Actually if you look at Bush's 2001 budget, which he projected to 2010, he DID listen to Bill Clinton. He even set-aside a "trust fund" for the surplus monies to save social security from going empty. Bush was following a plan to pay-off the national debt just as Clinton had done.
But then the New York attack happened..... oh well. I was against the war, but the American people demanded revenge, and Congress voted for it. So here we are.
No.
It's a common misconception to say Bush was worse than Obama, but it simply isn't true. Under both Clinton and Bush the debt "only" increased ~5 trillion per year (from 1993 to 2000 and 2001 to 2008). Under Obama's existing and projected budget, the debt increased by about $25 trillion during 2009, $15 trillion in 2010, and $10 trillion for the years 2011, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Look up Obama's budget - it's there in plain balck and white.
So you see, even after the economy's projected recovery, Obama still plans to increase our national debt about two times faster than either Clinton or Bush did. Bush added about 40 trillion while Obama's projecting 80-90 trillion by 2016.
So yeah I agree Bush was an ass (I didn't vote for him), but Obama is doubly so (my humble opinion). If Obama's projection is correct, we'll have close about $200,000/home as the decade ends and that simply isn't sustainable.
>>>under 10% unemployment, mkay?
It already is.
>>>The extra costs will be added to everyone's bill to cover your government mandated DSL program
Only a couple pennies per month... maybe a dollar... hardly a great burden. And remember, those wires would only be run IF the customer requested it. I know several persons who are happy with their $7-10 dialup because they just use it for email to keep in contact, and have no desire to have a two-to-three times larger bill.
.
>>>Your 'customer action' approach would be that everyone downgrade their service when the providers increase their charges to cover a government mandated rollout?
>>>
I never said "everyone".
Don't put words in my mouth.
I said the OPTION would be there. The KEY is that a customer has a power taxpayers don't. The power belongs to the people to decide, "Do I want to pay $xxx per month, or stay with dialup?" rather than in the hands of some oligarch in D.C. - Don't you believe in Democracy?
Well the ultimate democracy is the customer "voting" with his dollars whether or not to buy something. So to answer your previous question: YES being a self-ruling customer is preferred over being a tax serf. (IMHO)
+1 butchersong for being "insightful"
>>>instead of the taxpayer paying for it via taxes, the customers will pay for it
That's right. At least as a customer, you can cancel the bill if you feel it's too high, or downgrade to a cheaper service. For example I downgraded from $60 to $15 when comcast raised their rates.
- As a customer you have power to cancel or moderate your spending.
- As a taxpayer you have zero power.
- I prefer the former to the latter, don't you?
This "test" is typical of government programs. Expensive, doesn't work right, and ends-up not fulfilling its promises.
Remember EZpass in 2000? When I signed-up the government told me it would save time and money. Instead of $1 for a toll, I paid 90 cents, which saved a lot of cash over a month's time. Then in 2005 they eliminated the savings, but I kept the EZpass for convenience. And now in 2010 they want me to PAY $20 more each year than the cash drivers. I'm getting rid of my EZpass. It's typical politician doubletalk where they promise "savings" and then eventually end-up costing you MORE not less, than the old cash-based system.
This FCC test is likely costing a mint, and it clearly doesn't work, and will generate bad results to justify spending billions of dollars. Plus I suspect even if it did work properly and showed less than 5% of American don't have broadband via DSL, cable, satellite, cellular, or wifi..... the politicians will still claim it justifies spending billions of OUR dollars in order to buy votes.
Yes I'm a cynic. I trust the government about as much as I trust Microsoft or Comcast. Actually - less. At least MS or CC can't force their way into my home.
Name - commodore64_love
Number of residents - 3
(Thus ends the legally-allowed questions - the rest of these violate the Bill of Rights (9 and 10).)
Age: I forget.
Sex: I don't know what that is.
Income: Too small.
Insured? No and it's BY MY OWN CHOICE so STOP RAMMING IT DOWN MY THROAT.
Number of cars? As many as I can afford which is more than 0 but less than 100.
>>>So your goal to make sure they don't get any stimulus money for broadband by making it appear they do?
Our national debt is nearly $130,000 per American home* and projected by Obama's budget to increase +$10,000 more each year. We. Need. To Stop. Spending. Otherwise we'll have ~$200,000/home by the end of this decade, and all go bankrupt. As Cosby might say, "C'mon people! This isn't hard to figure out."
The solution to broadband is ridiculously easy -
- Congress should mandate with a simple law that the telephone company must provide DSL to any customer requests it (within six months). The twisted-pair lines are already there, except for the need to add a neighborhood DSLAM. If Verizon/ATT/whoever balk about expense, simply point to the billions they received circa 1996 and say "use that". Actually the expense should be quite low to upgrade existing phone lines to DSL lines.
* /100 million households.
* Simple math. Current U.S. Government Debt
Looks like google's webcrawlers/bots are now doing spell-checking.
You inadvertantly described the flaw with fuel cell cars.
You have water, and you crack it to make hydrogen, which makes the cars roll down the road. Sounds great doesn't it? But where does the energy come to crack the water? ----- Often the response is "just use solar" and that's fine, but if we have solar why not simply use the electricity directly in the car or house or other device? There's no need to add the additional water/hydrogen step.
Alternatively we could just use the same liquid fuel as we have now. Use solar electricity for everything else, but keep cars as they are now. We've got 10,000 years worth of coal laying around that could be liquefied into diesel fuel, and pumped into one of those new Volkswagen commuter cars at 250 MPG. These cars are so clean the pollutant can't be measured.
"you come across something worrisome on the internet - child pornography or extremism for example - you anonymously push the button on your browser, and the police are notified and check it out. What happened in practice though was that the button was sending not only the site in question but your recent browsing history as well"
Oh that's just great. I can hear the police officer now as he visits my home, "Thank you for reporting that child porn site. Unfortunately you also self-reported yourself to be buying illegal copies of Nintendo games on ebay, and browsing the danish site seventeen.com. You are under arrest."
>>>The problem is that a whole lot of angry men (and eager-to-please women) jumped on a reactionary "not in these-here parts" bandwagen and have deliberately misused the term to mean something it isn't.
>>>
No.
We just observed the obvious - a lot of feminists are anti-male sexists who would like to see (for example) me fired and replaced with a woman. We didn't twist the definition - they did that themselves and if they don't like it, then they should act to SILENCE the male-hating feminists instead of promoting them to higher levels of power inside NOW.
You really should be careful with that paintbrush.
I'm a conservative.
And a Republican.
I HATE corporations - I consider them to be the second worst evil in this nation (gov't being first). Concentration of power in a few, and the laws to protect them, is a dangerous doctrine.
Without stealing, we wouldn't have many works of Shakespeare or Bach, both of whom copied liberally from their Italian counterparts. (Of course that was before copyright existed, hence plagiarism of ideas was not only legal, but accepted.)
CORRECTION: He worked for the people. We have a right to know what goes on inside the dark corridors of the buildings we fund with OUR tax dollars.
If you disagree, we'll just dissolve the government, fire all the staff, and create a new one.
>>>this is just a pissy Governor
I'm sorry. I didn't vote for him, but just as Obama duped the U.S., so too did my neighbors get duped by Rendell the Rampant Lying/Spending SOB Who Speeds down I-81 and b0irbes cops not to give him a ticket.
CHOICE:
(1) Tell your employers (the citizens) the truth..... or.....
(2) End up like Mussolini.
DON'T piss off the citizens.
>>>"Secret while it's a security issue until it's fixed. Public after that."
This sounds like something Microsoft would spew..... as they sit on their asses for a year, keeping the users uninformed about a vulnerability in Internet Exploder, or Silverlight, or whatever.
I say the security issue should be open.
And whistle-blowers should be protected from being fired (especially government employees).
I see your point. On one of my many long-term business trips, I stayed in a $500/month hotel. It was a great bargain (even included free cable and internet), but it was also located right next to a large power switching station that I could hear humming every time I opened the door.
The other person made a good point about how it could be the herbicides, not the tower. That correlates with a previous Slashdot story about people complaining cell towers were making them sick, but the owner of said towers said that can't be, because they turned-off the towers 3 months earlier. So it wasn't the tower - it must have been something else.
>>>Basic analogy: If you put a translucent material in front of a lightbulb, you can see the lightbulb, but if you put metal foil, you can see around the foil. Therefor you reduce, but not eliminate your exposure.
>>>
Thank you Mr. "I'm not an RF Engineer". So if I unnerstand the gist of your analogy, I can cover my telescope with tinfoil, and more effectively allow me to spy on the sorority dorm next door. I can see them, but they can't see me. Thanks!
What the heck does family income have to do with blood cell cancer? It doesn't care if you are rich or poor, and therefore there's no point for a study to "control" for it.
(steps into of a time machine)
(steps out in the 1960s)
"There have been numerous studies worldwide about the effects of these cigarettes, and so far I don't think there is any proof of ill-effects. On the contrary many of our studies show cigarettes to be beneficial, and 4 out of 5 doctors agree that our brand is the best."
Perhaps towers ARE safe for most people under normal circumstances, but that doesn't mean they are always safe, especially if they are only a few feet away. Sailors in the navy are forbidden from being on the foredeck when the Aegis Radar is operating, because it will cook their bodies like a hot dog in a microwave. Antennas DO have the ability to damage human tissues, just as surely as one cigarette will not kill you, but over time the accumulated damage of repeated use means a shorter life.
>>>Every time you do you are holding the antenna of that right next to your head
Good point. A cellphone broadcasts at what? 1 watt? The tower is typically only a few microwatts (0.000001) by the time it crosses space and reaches your phone. Of course *this* tower is only a few feet away, but still it has degraded somewhat (milliwatts), so you're getting a LOT more power from the phone right next to your head.
This is why I typically keep my phone turned off.
Only turn it on when I need to call, or am expecting a call.
And don't put it next to my head while talking.
(Oh and no I would not live to any antenna.)
Typical editors (not just here but in general). They change the words to "improve" the article or story, but then they create a logical fallacy/ plot flaw.