but we don't have anything anywhere near such a relationship between some funding entity and the huge majority of climate scientists
It's more subtle than that. People who go into a field that tells us how to save the earth probably do so because they believe the earth needs saving. If climatology were a more hard science that wouldn't matter, but climate science is very model dependent, and even when clear conclusions develop the policy implications for them are often overemphasized without a more sensible cost/benefit or risk/reward analysis.
Gas pumps charge different prices in different jurisdictions. Are you proposing that cell plans be advertised as the "$83.42 plan in Montgomery County Maryland"? I think "$70 plus fees" is acceptable, if and only if I can enquire about those fees before purchase.
Why are the cell phone companies extending customers a near-infinite line of credit on the phone? What exactly makes them think that people are going to PAY a thousand dollar phone bill. It's sheer stupidity, they're sending out ludicrous bills and hoping to make it up on the suckers.
When I signed up for my Sprint plan, they did a credit check and capped my spending at $250. How hard is that? And how hard would it be to ask to have your plan capped to a certain multiple of your usual bill (say, 2x)?
I didn't mean to say that lawyers deserve what they make. Rather, I mean that one can't say that they *don't* deserve what they make, if you appreciate the distinction. The burden of proof on the post I replied to, since I'm not at all advocating regulating attorney pay. I would happily let the market settle it, provided it's functioning properly (which I very much appreciate your well-reasoned thoughts on why it may not be).
My deeper problem is that it's bad policy for people to make a gut reaction and say something shouldn't cost what it does. It tends to lead to unintended consequences, since you paper over the cause that led it to cost that much in the first place.
You just described small claims. Have an actual real-world dispute with someone? You're highly likely to be able to seek, and GET, relief there.
Meanwhile, for high-dollar cases, it's nice to have rules set in stone to let business go on without wondering if the whim of a judge is going to find something subjectively "unfair".
Why exactly should they have to make any less than they do? Is there anti-competitive action in the market, besides the mandatory licensing (and corresponding expensive education)?
The thought that someone doesn't deserve to make what independent people are willing to pay them is one of the most bone-chilling authoritarian sentiments that have the misfortune of being popular on this site.
And if YOU had been awake in your Civics class you would know that Congress is responsible for the budget of every single Executive department, *including* NASA and therefore decides which projects are funded to what level, if any.
NASA's executive power begins at executing, line for line, the budget that Congress has allotted them.
Without going into my own beliefs, I don't think that follows logically. I know Catholic doctrine states that other religions actually worship the same God, they just have a faulty understanding of him. Their view is that there's SOMETHING out there, and they think they have the most complete and accurate explanation of what that is. So to apply their own stance to their own faith (that their interpretation is ALSO wrong) still leaves the presupposition (correct or not) that there is some sort of higher power.
A professional HR department can suck out a lot of the tedium and paperwork, as long as it has a good director, and managers still have most of the input on hires/fires. Just like any service department (IT take note), don't let them call the shots.
Very off topic, but wouldn't you think that someone spending that much on a military campaign without raising taxes would have some ramifications? To NOT blame Bush would be a new level of blinders. This HAD to happen.
Deficit spending didn't cause the recession. It's still bad, and we should clean up our mess before it causes the NEXT one, but you misunderstand the banking crisis if you think the national debt is involved.
I can see why they don't want to get embroiled in any of the legal stuff associated with Torrents.
It takes a special sort of perverted mind for that sentence to make any sort of sense. But people like those wear suits and work for the MPAA and RIAA! It's some sort of karma that the same sort of people (people who need help to get their printer to work, and will never know what an "Internet" is) also work for Apple's legal department. So we have a situation that regardless of what reality actually is, the perception of reality employed by the RIAA is now the de-facto legal standard at tech companies.
Use paragraphs. Posts without line breaks appear disorganized and are difficult to read. If you're set to the default HTML posting style, you need to use "p" or "br" tags to get line breaks to appear. Otherwise change to plain text.
Consider starting from scratch. It's easier to go from no karma to "excellent" than from "bad" to "excellent". In addition to needing fewer up-mods to get good karma, those up-mods will be easier to receive since you're starting at 1 and not 0.
If her name is trademarked for business purposes, like Donald Trump, then yes. But this is far more appropriate for a defamation suit, which (I can only guess) her lawyer thought would be harder to win.
"Lessig mentions The Social Network to direct attention to his own pet project." Seriously, I agree with the guy's opinions, but that was pretty shameless.
The way I was first instructed airbags work was as a simple piece of metal attracted to a magnet, completing a circuit. When a sudden enough force occurs, the metal is dislodged, the circuit breaks, and the airbag fires. No computer necessary.
It's an issue that clearly falls under Federal aegis (broadcasting over public airwaves). It's a mostly unanimously agreed upon problem (among those who have any opinion at all) with a simple regulatory solution. This is the kind of thing that should happen quickly, often, and without much fanfare or expenditure of government resources, in the same way that wiping down a dining table at a restaurant should be able to happen without distracting from cooking the meals.
Slashdot Mirror
There are almost zero secular Conservatives
They prefer to be called "economists".
but we don't have anything anywhere near such a relationship between some funding entity and the huge majority of climate scientists
It's more subtle than that. People who go into a field that tells us how to save the earth probably do so because they believe the earth needs saving. If climatology were a more hard science that wouldn't matter, but climate science is very model dependent, and even when clear conclusions develop the policy implications for them are often overemphasized without a more sensible cost/benefit or risk/reward analysis.
Because it runs on Silverlight and Microsoft refuses to offer the necessary parts of their DRM stack to Moonlight.
I find it difficult to believe it's intentional, as it makes it difficult to quote someone.
It is, however, incredibly annoying.
Gas pumps charge different prices in different jurisdictions. Are you proposing that cell plans be advertised as the "$83.42 plan in Montgomery County Maryland"? I think "$70 plus fees" is acceptable, if and only if I can enquire about those fees before purchase.
Why are the cell phone companies extending customers a near-infinite line of credit on the phone? What exactly makes them think that people are going to PAY a thousand dollar phone bill. It's sheer stupidity, they're sending out ludicrous bills and hoping to make it up on the suckers.
When I signed up for my Sprint plan, they did a credit check and capped my spending at $250. How hard is that? And how hard would it be to ask to have your plan capped to a certain multiple of your usual bill (say, 2x)?
I didn't mean to say that lawyers deserve what they make. Rather, I mean that one can't say that they *don't* deserve what they make, if you appreciate the distinction. The burden of proof on the post I replied to, since I'm not at all advocating regulating attorney pay. I would happily let the market settle it, provided it's functioning properly (which I very much appreciate your well-reasoned thoughts on why it may not be).
My deeper problem is that it's bad policy for people to make a gut reaction and say something shouldn't cost what it does. It tends to lead to unintended consequences, since you paper over the cause that led it to cost that much in the first place.
Why does everyone blow this kind of stuff out of proportion and automatically go to authoritarian/socialist/etc?
This time? Caffeine dep. Apologies for that.
You just described small claims. Have an actual real-world dispute with someone? You're highly likely to be able to seek, and GET, relief there.
Meanwhile, for high-dollar cases, it's nice to have rules set in stone to let business go on without wondering if the whim of a judge is going to find something subjectively "unfair".
Why exactly should they have to make any less than they do? Is there anti-competitive action in the market, besides the mandatory licensing (and corresponding expensive education)?
The thought that someone doesn't deserve to make what independent people are willing to pay them is one of the most bone-chilling authoritarian sentiments that have the misfortune of being popular on this site.
This is exactly the problem.
And if YOU had been awake in your Civics class you would know that Congress is responsible for the budget of every single Executive department, *including* NASA and therefore decides which projects are funded to what level, if any.
NASA's executive power begins at executing, line for line, the budget that Congress has allotted them.
Without going into my own beliefs, I don't think that follows logically. I know Catholic doctrine states that other religions actually worship the same God, they just have a faulty understanding of him. Their view is that there's SOMETHING out there, and they think they have the most complete and accurate explanation of what that is. So to apply their own stance to their own faith (that their interpretation is ALSO wrong) still leaves the presupposition (correct or not) that there is some sort of higher power.
A professional HR department can suck out a lot of the tedium and paperwork, as long as it has a good director, and managers still have most of the input on hires/fires. Just like any service department (IT take note), don't let them call the shots.
Very off topic, but wouldn't you think that someone spending that much on a military campaign without raising taxes would have some ramifications? To NOT blame Bush would be a new level of blinders. This HAD to happen.
Deficit spending didn't cause the recession. It's still bad, and we should clean up our mess before it causes the NEXT one, but you misunderstand the banking crisis if you think the national debt is involved.
Love your idea, but no Netflix. Maybe once the new ones are hackable.
I can see why they don't want to get embroiled in any of the legal stuff associated with Torrents.
It takes a special sort of perverted mind for that sentence to make any sort of sense. But people like those wear suits and work for the MPAA and RIAA! It's some sort of karma that the same sort of people (people who need help to get their printer to work, and will never know what an "Internet" is) also work for Apple's legal department. So we have a situation that regardless of what reality actually is, the perception of reality employed by the RIAA is now the de-facto legal standard at tech companies.
What a world.
In addition to sibling comments:
Use paragraphs. Posts without line breaks appear disorganized and are difficult to read. If you're set to the default HTML posting style, you need to use "p" or "br" tags to get line breaks to appear. Otherwise change to plain text.
Consider starting from scratch. It's easier to go from no karma to "excellent" than from "bad" to "excellent". In addition to needing fewer up-mods to get good karma, those up-mods will be easier to receive since you're starting at 1 and not 0.
If her name is trademarked for business purposes, like Donald Trump, then yes. But this is far more appropriate for a defamation suit, which (I can only guess) her lawyer thought would be harder to win.
"Lessig mentions The Social Network to direct attention to his own pet project." Seriously, I agree with the guy's opinions, but that was pretty shameless.
The way I was first instructed airbags work was as a simple piece of metal attracted to a magnet, completing a circuit. When a sudden enough force occurs, the metal is dislodged, the circuit breaks, and the airbag fires. No computer necessary.
Or... you could just allow the states to elect Senators again.
I already dropped cable for dsl, netflix, hulu and hd over the air.
So what you're saying then is this actually is relevant to you.
It's an issue that clearly falls under Federal aegis (broadcasting over public airwaves). It's a mostly unanimously agreed upon problem (among those who have any opinion at all) with a simple regulatory solution. This is the kind of thing that should happen quickly, often, and without much fanfare or expenditure of government resources, in the same way that wiping down a dining table at a restaurant should be able to happen without distracting from cooking the meals.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but ICANN is scum. I'll take the FDA over them.