Wait no longer. It's already happened at least once. (IIRC he was a Representative from New England, but I can't remember which state. They later took his name off the list and appologized to him.)
I think it was around 5 years ago now. Possibly longer.
I think you would actually NEED good evidence before that was a reasonable response. Here we just know that SOMEONE is lying, and we have a pretty strong belief that it's someone among the Feds. But belief isn't proof. The paper could be a fake. It could be something cooked up by the airline, or someone who worked there, perhaps because they overbooked the flight.
Yes, we believe that the Feds are the responsible party. Now prove that the lawyers knew or had reason to know. Even showing that it's probable would be impossible based on public information.
OTOH, the case should clearly not be allowed to proceed. And it should be ensured that the witness is able to come to the trial. AND the court should purchase the airplane ticket. (I can quite understand the witness not wanting to throw good money after bad.) If, after the trial, it is decided that the witness was barred from the first flight because of being present on the no-fly list, triple the cost of the ticket should be assigned to the lawyers who asserted in court that she was not on that list. If it is decided that the witness lied, triple the cost should be assigned to her. (As a fine. Note that so far she is not under oath, so it can't be perjury.) If it's some other party, the court would need to decide what to do depending on the party. (Interfering with a witness is criminal, and this is clearly that. But they may well be outside the jurisdiction of the court.)
But the current decision is silly. If she can't come because she's on the no-fly list, then every time she buys a ticket shes just thrown away her money. Of course she isn't going to buy tickets without a reasonable belief that it will do her any good. And the judge asking her to is being unreasonable. She may not have proof (i.e. sworn evidence) that she's on the no-fly list, but she has good reason to believe it. And the judge has seen a part of that "good reason", so he knows that she has good reason to believe it.
It doesn't usually quite work like that. The way it usually works is:
(to start at an arbitrary point) 1: The Democrats are in and infurating people. 2: The Republicans get in, and pass laws giving the executive more power. The Democrats get into a tizzy about how unjust they are, so the Republicans hesitate to use them. 3: The Democrats get in, and use the powers granted them by the prior administration. 4: Go to 1.
Sorry, but that's supposed to be "the people or the States". Which might imply that a State would be within their right to require a driver's license, but the feds wouldn't be.
The U.S. Constitution was intended to limit the powers of the Federal government, not of the State governments. (Except I think that there was a guarantee that all states would have a Republican form of government...though I'd need to look that up to be certain.)
FIUC, he said you need a permit to conceal the gun. Presumably wearing it in a holster on your belt wouldn't count as concealing it...though I've heard of instances were if you couldn't see the trigger it was called concealed...so maybe you need a clear plastic holster.
You may be correct, but your post doesn't seem to support your initial assertion.
You didn't specify what those "certain standards" are, so there is no way to judge how reasonable they were. Or how expensive. And that says NOTHING about who is paying for it.
You raise a good question as to why 25% of the clinics would need to close, but you don't provide an answer. I could come up with several possible answers, only a few of which would confirm your supposition.
And this is presuming that your statements are factually correct. I'm not informed in this area, so they may be, but your presentation causes me to feel dubious about accepting them.
And nothing in your post, outside of the bare assertion, speaks to whether Planned Parenthood is accepting federal money. That's not even well-defined. Do you consider being a tax write-off accepting federal money? If so, then they clearly are, and no surprise. That's not the way most people would understand the assertion. If you mean something else, what *do* you mean? (I can come up with several possible things that you might mean. They have different degrees of plausibility, and I would check them in different ways, but without knowing what you meant in more detail, I can't even check the assertion.)
My actual suspicion is that you got your information from a Radio Ministry or some such source. I think you're serious. I'm certain you are certain...I'm just dubious that you even know what you are certain of.
Not to worry. The monopolists had corrupted conservatism already before the religious bigots ever got there.
A conservative should be someone who wants to reduce the rate of change, whether by positive or negative actions. That's what it originally meant. And any alteration in that meaning is a corruption (of the language, if nothing else). It's related to conserve, and to preserve, and to conservation.
Would you prefer the term "surveilance state"? You might look up the history of the term panopticon. The association with a police state isn't necessary, but the transition to one is trivial.
You might also consider why the immense amount of effort is being put into automated soldiery. And remote surveilance. They are useful in a minor war on foreign soil, but they might become essential if you want to conduct anti-guerilla actions on your home turf. So you may need to be able to quickly outsource your army (and also disarm the current one).
And note the number of police departments that are starting to explore drones for local use.
Mind you, every single fact here has an innocent explanation. But if we're doing a threat analysis, we don't consider that if there are two explanations, the more benign one is the real one. Instead we consider that they may BOTH be correct, with different groups supporting different reasons, but both yielding the same capabilities. And it's the capabilities that matter.
It's not that there's no space. There's LOTS of space. It's that in a plurality wins voting system, only the top two candidates have a plausible chance of being elected. This is why some form of majority wins voting is superior. Instant Runoff Voting is the easiest to explain, even though Condorcet Voting is theoretically superior. (The difference isn't large.) Plurality wins is nearly the worst voting system around. (The exception is "Only approved candidates can run" which is worse, and which we also have to a minor degree.]
Given our voting system the decision making it easier to start third parties actually weakened the potential for new ideas to affect the current parties. Especially as it was accompanied by an FCC decision saying the the TV networks didn't need to make equal time available to all candidates.
Progressive policies requiring a police state doesn't mean that Neo-Con policies don't require a police state. They both do. I find the Progressive version less obnoxious, but each implies the other, given a slight change in management.
If I could decentralize the government, I would. As I can't, I wish it would use it's power to the benefit of the average person. Actually, I wish it would use it's power to the benefit of those without much power. But I also recognize that I can't make this happen either.
I consider the main problem with the government is that those with power are not held to a higher standard of conduct than those with less power. I consider that to do this would require a degree of transparency that both parties have proven themselves unwilling to do more than promise. And that neither party is willing to use the power of the government to remove those who are abusing their power. Not even when it's to the extent of breaking laws. (N.B.: "It's legal" should never be considered an excuse for governmental action. It should be a part of the "necessary, but not sufficient" conditions.)
I can remember periods that were freer than now. But reports from the 1950s have convinced me that it probably wasn't any freer. (I was a kid, so I didn't notice.)
History also doesn't treat my illusions of earlier freedom kindly. People being arbitrarily deprived for property, and occasionally their lives, because of race...well, SOME people were free, but others were much less free.
What we have here is a corrupt government that can't be trusted, and is highly intrusive. (Those are three almost orthogonal factors...each undesireable.) The intrusiveness is incredibly strong, primarily because of technological factors. It's tremendously unhealthy for our traditional values. But if the government weren't corrupt, or could be trusted, then it would matter a lot less. (In that case it would be a potential threat rather than a believable threat.) But there have been times before when newspapers had their independence stifled by the government to a much greater degree.
The new factor is that the ownership of the news is centralized. Reporters can't now trust their editor to stand behind them, because it's no longer his call. Now it's the call of higher management, that often isn't even interested in the news business, except as a way to push ads. And reporters know this, and if they don't, their editors do, and let them know about it.
I no longer buy a newspaper, because I don't like paying people to lie to me. Similarly, I rarely listen to what a politician says...only watch what he does.
I think the negative income tax is a better approach. If done properly, at every step the more you earn, the more you keep, so you don't get into the perverse incentives of the current system. (I.e., you don't want special privileges to be a part of the tax law. Income is all the money you take in, no matter what it's source. No loopholes. KISS.)
Lamentably, I think the chance of this happening is very small. Perhaps a guaranteed minimum income has a better chance.
The economic wellfare of a country is not the same as the economic welfare of the people who are poor (or used to be poor, but are now dead). So Britain benefiting economically from the events neither proves nor implies that the Luddites were wrong in their fears. I would like particular sources that it did not "systematically lower standards of living", as that is not what I believe to be true. If you mean that it didn't lower the mean standard of living...well, that's what you expect if you take the lower end of the economic curve and truncate it. So that, again, is not a contradiction. People who died aren't counted.
It's also true that those who lived through the transition, benefitted from it. Cheaper cloth, e.g., reduced the cost to everyone else.
Nowhere is there evidence that their fears were incorrect, and all the evidence presented, as opposed to asserted opinions, is consistent with their fears being correct.
In a way, it's like a plague. The survivors of the plague are wealthier than they were before, because in many cases those who owned property are no longer there to claim it. But this does not imply that it's wrong to fear the plague. You don't know that you, and those you care for, will be a survivor.
Nope. If it's the first time you heard, it's because you weren't paying attention.
Mind you, they didn't really have an organized program, and different self-appointed(?) spokesmen said different things. But what they all wanted is that they continue to have a livlihood. Most of them would have been happy to have been retrained into machine operators and repairment...but they weren't given that option (and realistically, there weren't enough openings in those jobs).
Please note that this happened at about the same time as the Enclosure acts, and was a part of the same process. Basically murdering the poor for the benefit of the wealthy. Murder is a bit too blunt a word for something so indirect, but, OTOH, it's too kind for the mass destruction of life that was the result. Class warfare initiated by, and run for the benefit of, the rich is the only accurate description I can come up with. And it was a real war in which real people in large numbers were killed.
I think the normal justification for this kind of activity is "might makes right".
Who's going to pay you to do what you want? Well, some people will be able to manage. Some artists. A few programmers (perhaps). But most people couldn't FIND anyone to pay them to do what they want to do. If they could, they'd be doing something else.
Additionally, while there are some people who really like to garden, they *wouldn't* like to work on a modern farm. And they don't want to do it full time. Analogize this out... I WANT to program computers. But not all the time. And I want to work on the projects I choose.
Robotic factories will BE a new infrastructure, whereever they are put in.
OTOH, electronics is just where Google is putting their efforts. Other companies are putting their efforts elsewhere. Automated warehouses are already extant. (Check out Amazon.) Google is working on automated trucks. (They say cars, but my guess is that trucks is where the money is.) So you have automated trucks going to automated warehouses connected to automated factories...
*I* think that a 25% structural unemployment is an underestimate. My guess is closer to 75%. Which is more of a problem than 99% unemployment would be, because you still need to get people to work reliably. (Also, my guess is that it could be higher than 75%, except that the managers won't act to replace their own jobs.)
I don't know about you, but I've never been able to reliably guess how hard a project will be, or how long it will take. I've always thought that this was guaranteed insoluble by the halting problem.
Please note: I'm not saying I can't make a decent guess. I'm saying that I don't trust my own guesses. And I'm short about as often (much?) as I'm over.
Well, one thing that's wrong with California is unfunded initiatives. People vote for things without figuring out how to pay for them. Only the Feds are allowed to do that.
Possibly Oregon is so bad at IT that they don't deserve any credit, but it's also true that Oracle is so untrustworthy that they don't deserve any slack either. So if Oregon says that Oracle didn't live up tot he contract, I have no difficulty in believing them. (Perhaps Oregon is lousy at contract administration? That would meet both of our expectations.)
Given the experiences I had with Oracle on a much smaller system, I'm quite willing to believe that they took the money, and then promissed that if you gave them more money they'd start work. They aren't being accused of that, possibly because Oregon is a larger customer with more clout, but I would NEVER trust ANY recommendation from Oracle. This is anecdote, not data, but it *is* my personal experience.
Well, not wifi, and not as cheap, but infra-red transmission might be an option. You need to position repeaters around properly, and figure lines of sight, but ti should be doable. Wifi has the benefit that you don't need to worry (much) about signal path, but this comes at the expense of lots of collisions. With infrared you could use, e.g., overhead wiring behind a false-front ceiling, and have the transmitters come out pointed down from within the light fixtures. So they're invisible. You need a receiver on the top of each connection, perhaps in your setup that means one for every four computers.
This gives you something cheap, reliable, inconspicuous. But note that I didn't say cheap. It's been decades since I looked at this kind of setup, so I don't know current equipment, but I do know that it's not commodity, and that means relatively expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait no longer. It's already happened at least once. (IIRC he was a Representative from New England, but I can't remember which state. They later took his name off the list and appologized to him.)
I think it was around 5 years ago now. Possibly longer.
I think you would actually NEED good evidence before that was a reasonable response. Here we just know that SOMEONE is lying, and we have a pretty strong belief that it's someone among the Feds. But belief isn't proof. The paper could be a fake. It could be something cooked up by the airline, or someone who worked there, perhaps because they overbooked the flight.
Yes, we believe that the Feds are the responsible party. Now prove that the lawyers knew or had reason to know. Even showing that it's probable would be impossible based on public information.
OTOH, the case should clearly not be allowed to proceed. And it should be ensured that the witness is able to come to the trial. AND the court should purchase the airplane ticket. (I can quite understand the witness not wanting to throw good money after bad.) If, after the trial, it is decided that the witness was barred from the first flight because of being present on the no-fly list, triple the cost of the ticket should be assigned to the lawyers who asserted in court that she was not on that list. If it is decided that the witness lied, triple the cost should be assigned to her. (As a fine. Note that so far she is not under oath, so it can't be perjury.) If it's some other party, the court would need to decide what to do depending on the party. (Interfering with a witness is criminal, and this is clearly that. But they may well be outside the jurisdiction of the court.)
But the current decision is silly. If she can't come because she's on the no-fly list, then every time she buys a ticket shes just thrown away her money. Of course she isn't going to buy tickets without a reasonable belief that it will do her any good. And the judge asking her to is being unreasonable. She may not have proof (i.e. sworn evidence) that she's on the no-fly list, but she has good reason to believe it. And the judge has seen a part of that "good reason", so he knows that she has good reason to believe it.
It doesn't usually quite work like that. The way it usually works is:
(to start at an arbitrary point)
1: The Democrats are in and infurating people.
2: The Republicans get in, and pass laws giving the executive more power. The Democrats get into a tizzy about how unjust they are, so the Republicans hesitate to use them.
3: The Democrats get in, and use the powers granted them by the prior administration.
4: Go to 1.
However it sounds as if he is also imposing impossible conditions on an innocent party.
He may be an honest judge, but by this act he is supporting a corrupt system....unless I'm misunderstanding the situation.
Sorry, but that's supposed to be "the people or the States". Which might imply that a State would be within their right to require a driver's license, but the feds wouldn't be.
The U.S. Constitution was intended to limit the powers of the Federal government, not of the State governments. (Except I think that there was a guarantee that all states would have a Republican form of government...though I'd need to look that up to be certain.)
FIUC, he said you need a permit to conceal the gun. Presumably wearing it in a holster on your belt wouldn't count as concealing it...though I've heard of instances were if you couldn't see the trigger it was called concealed...so maybe you need a clear plastic holster.
No it isn't the same. A slave in prison can be profitable to hire. And profitable to rent.
The government is not the only problem, but it is also an enabler of many other problems.
You may be correct, but your post doesn't seem to support your initial assertion.
You didn't specify what those "certain standards" are, so there is no way to judge how reasonable they were. Or how expensive. And that says NOTHING about who is paying for it.
You raise a good question as to why 25% of the clinics would need to close, but you don't provide an answer. I could come up with several possible answers, only a few of which would confirm your supposition.
And this is presuming that your statements are factually correct. I'm not informed in this area, so they may be, but your presentation causes me to feel dubious about accepting them.
And nothing in your post, outside of the bare assertion, speaks to whether Planned Parenthood is accepting federal money. That's not even well-defined. Do you consider being a tax write-off accepting federal money? If so, then they clearly are, and no surprise. That's not the way most people would understand the assertion. If you mean something else, what *do* you mean? (I can come up with several possible things that you might mean. They have different degrees of plausibility, and I would check them in different ways, but without knowing what you meant in more detail, I can't even check the assertion.)
My actual suspicion is that you got your information from a Radio Ministry or some such source. I think you're serious. I'm certain you are certain...I'm just dubious that you even know what you are certain of.
Not to worry. The monopolists had corrupted conservatism already before the religious bigots ever got there.
A conservative should be someone who wants to reduce the rate of change, whether by positive or negative actions. That's what it originally meant. And any alteration in that meaning is a corruption (of the language, if nothing else). It's related to conserve, and to preserve, and to conservation.
Would you prefer the term "surveilance state"? You might look up the history of the term panopticon. The association with a police state isn't necessary, but the transition to one is trivial.
You might also consider why the immense amount of effort is being put into automated soldiery. And remote surveilance. They are useful in a minor war on foreign soil, but they might become essential if you want to conduct anti-guerilla actions on your home turf. So you may need to be able to quickly outsource your army (and also disarm the current one).
And note the number of police departments that are starting to explore drones for local use.
Mind you, every single fact here has an innocent explanation. But if we're doing a threat analysis, we don't consider that if there are two explanations, the more benign one is the real one. Instead we consider that they may BOTH be correct, with different groups supporting different reasons, but both yielding the same capabilities. And it's the capabilities that matter.
It's not that there's no space. There's LOTS of space. It's that in a plurality wins voting system, only the top two candidates have a plausible chance of being elected. This is why some form of majority wins voting is superior. Instant Runoff Voting is the easiest to explain, even though Condorcet Voting is theoretically superior. (The difference isn't large.) Plurality wins is nearly the worst voting system around. (The exception is "Only approved candidates can run" which is worse, and which we also have to a minor degree.]
Given our voting system the decision making it easier to start third parties actually weakened the potential for new ideas to affect the current parties. Especially as it was accompanied by an FCC decision saying the the TV networks didn't need to make equal time available to all candidates.
Progressive policies requiring a police state doesn't mean that Neo-Con policies don't require a police state. They both do. I find the Progressive version less obnoxious, but each implies the other, given a slight change in management.
If I could decentralize the government, I would. As I can't, I wish it would use it's power to the benefit of the average person. Actually, I wish it would use it's power to the benefit of those without much power. But I also recognize that I can't make this happen either.
I consider the main problem with the government is that those with power are not held to a higher standard of conduct than those with less power. I consider that to do this would require a degree of transparency that both parties have proven themselves unwilling to do more than promise. And that neither party is willing to use the power of the government to remove those who are abusing their power. Not even when it's to the extent of breaking laws. (N.B.: "It's legal" should never be considered an excuse for governmental action. It should be a part of the "necessary, but not sufficient" conditions.)
I'm not that old, and I was born during WWII.
I can remember periods that were freer than now. But reports from the 1950s have convinced me that it probably wasn't any freer. (I was a kid, so I didn't notice.)
History also doesn't treat my illusions of earlier freedom kindly. People being arbitrarily deprived for property, and occasionally their lives, because of race...well, SOME people were free, but others were much less free.
What we have here is a corrupt government that can't be trusted, and is highly intrusive. (Those are three almost orthogonal factors...each undesireable.) The intrusiveness is incredibly strong, primarily because of technological factors. It's tremendously unhealthy for our traditional values. But if the government weren't corrupt, or could be trusted, then it would matter a lot less. (In that case it would be a potential threat rather than a believable threat.) But there have been times before when newspapers had their independence stifled by the government to a much greater degree.
The new factor is that the ownership of the news is centralized. Reporters can't now trust their editor to stand behind them, because it's no longer his call. Now it's the call of higher management, that often isn't even interested in the news business, except as a way to push ads. And reporters know this, and if they don't, their editors do, and let them know about it.
I no longer buy a newspaper, because I don't like paying people to lie to me. Similarly, I rarely listen to what a politician says...only watch what he does.
I think the negative income tax is a better approach. If done properly, at every step the more you earn, the more you keep, so you don't get into the perverse incentives of the current system. (I.e., you don't want special privileges to be a part of the tax law. Income is all the money you take in, no matter what it's source. No loopholes. KISS.)
Lamentably, I think the chance of this happening is very small. Perhaps a guaranteed minimum income has a better chance.
The economic wellfare of a country is not the same as the economic welfare of the people who are poor (or used to be poor, but are now dead). So Britain benefiting economically from the events neither proves nor implies that the Luddites were wrong in their fears. I would like particular sources that it did not "systematically lower standards of living", as that is not what I believe to be true. If you mean that it didn't lower the mean standard of living...well, that's what you expect if you take the lower end of the economic curve and truncate it. So that, again, is not a contradiction. People who died aren't counted.
It's also true that those who lived through the transition, benefitted from it. Cheaper cloth, e.g., reduced the cost to everyone else.
Nowhere is there evidence that their fears were incorrect, and all the evidence presented, as opposed to asserted opinions, is consistent with their fears being correct.
In a way, it's like a plague. The survivors of the plague are wealthier than they were before, because in many cases those who owned property are no longer there to claim it. But this does not imply that it's wrong to fear the plague. You don't know that you, and those you care for, will be a survivor.
Nope. If it's the first time you heard, it's because you weren't paying attention.
Mind you, they didn't really have an organized program, and different self-appointed(?) spokesmen said different things. But what they all wanted is that they continue to have a livlihood. Most of them would have been happy to have been retrained into machine operators and repairment...but they weren't given that option (and realistically, there weren't enough openings in those jobs).
Please note that this happened at about the same time as the Enclosure acts, and was a part of the same process. Basically murdering the poor for the benefit of the wealthy. Murder is a bit too blunt a word for something so indirect, but, OTOH, it's too kind for the mass destruction of life that was the result. Class warfare initiated by, and run for the benefit of, the rich is the only accurate description I can come up with. And it was a real war in which real people in large numbers were killed.
I think the normal justification for this kind of activity is "might makes right".
Who's going to pay you to do what you want? Well, some people will be able to manage. Some artists. A few programmers (perhaps). But most people couldn't FIND anyone to pay them to do what they want to do. If they could, they'd be doing something else.
Additionally, while there are some people who really like to garden, they *wouldn't* like to work on a modern farm. And they don't want to do it full time. Analogize this out... I WANT to program computers. But not all the time. And I want to work on the projects I choose.
Robotic factories will BE a new infrastructure, whereever they are put in.
OTOH, electronics is just where Google is putting their efforts. Other companies are putting their efforts elsewhere. Automated warehouses are already extant. (Check out Amazon.) Google is working on automated trucks. (They say cars, but my guess is that trucks is where the money is.) So you have automated trucks going to automated warehouses connected to automated factories...
*I* think that a 25% structural unemployment is an underestimate. My guess is closer to 75%. Which is more of a problem than 99% unemployment would be, because you still need to get people to work reliably. (Also, my guess is that it could be higher than 75%, except that the managers won't act to replace their own jobs.)
Mea culpa. But I shouldn't have, because it probably isn't.
I don't know about you, but I've never been able to reliably guess how hard a project will be, or how long it will take. I've always thought that this was guaranteed insoluble by the halting problem.
Please note: I'm not saying I can't make a decent guess. I'm saying that I don't trust my own guesses. And I'm short about as often (much?) as I'm over.
Well, one thing that's wrong with California is unfunded initiatives. People vote for things without figuring out how to pay for them. Only the Feds are allowed to do that.
Possibly Oregon is so bad at IT that they don't deserve any credit, but it's also true that Oracle is so untrustworthy that they don't deserve any slack either. So if Oregon says that Oracle didn't live up tot he contract, I have no difficulty in believing them. (Perhaps Oregon is lousy at contract administration? That would meet both of our expectations.)
Given the experiences I had with Oracle on a much smaller system, I'm quite willing to believe that they took the money, and then promissed that if you gave them more money they'd start work. They aren't being accused of that, possibly because Oregon is a larger customer with more clout, but I would NEVER trust ANY recommendation from Oracle. This is anecdote, not data, but it *is* my personal experience.
Well, not wifi, and not as cheap, but infra-red transmission might be an option. You need to position repeaters around properly, and figure lines of sight, but ti should be doable. Wifi has the benefit that you don't need to worry (much) about signal path, but this comes at the expense of lots of collisions. With infrared you could use, e.g., overhead wiring behind a false-front ceiling, and have the transmitters come out pointed down from within the light fixtures. So they're invisible. You need a receiver on the top of each connection, perhaps in your setup that means one for every four computers.
This gives you something cheap, reliable, inconspicuous. But note that I didn't say cheap. It's been decades since I looked at this kind of setup, so I don't know current equipment, but I do know that it's not commodity, and that means relatively expensive.