Tariffs and boycotts were after-the-fact excuses. The one people blame was the Morrill Tariff, but Buchanan didn't sign that until March 1861, shortly before he left office and after seven states had already seceded (which also deprived opponents of the bill the number of senators needed to block its passage).
If Lincoln hadn't been elected, it's unlikely the states would have seceded, at least at that time. They feared the loss of the institution of slavery that they believed Lincoln would pursue. (He probably would have, but by winding it down over time and possibly compensating Southerners for their transition to a non-slave economy.)
History is complicated... look at the american secession war. The modern myth is: it was all about slaves. However the slave issue only came "into the news" 2 or 3 years after the secession and as it seemed that the south was "winning". (Defending its cause and staying separated, not winning as in "conquering the north")
As you say, history is complicated. You claim that the modern myth is that it was all about slaves, while many claim that it had nothing to do with slaves and was about states' rights, but the truth is more complicated.
The secessions themselves were triggered by slavery, or rather a perceived threat to slavery. The South feared that the incoming President Lincoln would try to reduce or even end slavery, and states started seceding even before he took office in March 1861, with seven of the eleven states that would secede publishing secession declarations by that time (and thus most seceded during the presidency of Buchanan, who did essentially nothing to stop it). Those declarations made very clear that secession was about protecting slavery.
Lincoln did want to see an end to slavery, but even more, he wanted to preserve the Union. In a letter to the editor of the New York Tribune, he wrote:
If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.
(Emphasis mine.)
He held this view honestly, as slaves in states that did not secede (plus some parishes in Louisiana and a few counties in Virginia that I believe were held by Union forces) were not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. The initial proclamation was made on 22 Sept 1862 and gave Confederate states until the end of the year to return to the Union, in which case they would be allowed to keep their slaves. After that, all slaves in rebel territory would be free in the eyes of the Union.
This came 17 months after the start of hostilities, after the victory of Union forces at Antietam when the South's General Robert E. Lee withdrew from the battlefield before the North's General George McClellan did. McClellan's victory was almost accidental, but it prevented victory in the first major incursion by Confederate forces into Union territory. The victory was important enough for Lincoln to seize it as the moment to publicly announce the Emancipation Proclamation, which made the Civil War about slavery in the North as well as in the South. From that point on, foreign nations who had abolished slavery could no longer risk recognizing the Confederacy as an independent nation, dooming the CSA's economy and what little chance they had at winning.
Except that the "'herd immunity' thing" isn't iffy at those levels, as we've seen over the last several decades. Locations that maintain high vaccination rates show very low or zero breakout frequency, and locations with low vaccination levels are far more likely to have breakouts.
You're also crediting anti-vaxxers with a lot more integrity than they often have. They won't quote you specifically. They'll say that they read some vaccination supporter admit that the vaccines are nowhere near 100% effective. Those who are curious won't be able to tie it back to you to see that you actually support vaccination.
Immunizations aren't anywhere near 100% effective.
I realize what you're saying and that you support vaccination, but the phrasing here made me cringe. Its the kind of thing anti-vaxxers jump on, along the lines of "Even supporters agree that they're nowhere near 100% effective."
Most vaccines are in the nineties when it comes to percent effectiveness, and some of them do near 100% effectiveness. I'd call even 90% effective "nearly all" because, with sufficient portions of the populated being vaccinated, an infection is not likely to get very far.
Charity still represents a loss of profit. All it does is reduce taxable income. It's deducted from gross income, but there's still a loss of profits associated with it. If a company donates $1000 and pays 30% in taxes, its tax bill is reduced by only $300. The rest of the $700 is lost profits.
There are plenty of conflict resources that are perfectly legal to purchase, but which companies choose to source from elsewhere despite higher costs because it's the right thing to do. This is not a case of maximizing profits.
This is the issue that I have with people that make the claim that companies are required to turn the maximum profit. They're not. Publicly traded companies are required to take actions to try to protect shareholder value, but that does not mean turning over every rock in case a penny can be found under it. People making such claims frequently do not understand how the system works even in the slightest.
Sometimes "playing the lottery" isn't a choice. There are plenty of people who fell between the cracks of being eligible for Medicaid and having parents able to afford medical insurance. There are also many cases where someone had insurance but lost their job, couldn't afford COBRA, got diagnosed, and then later tried to get insurance and was denied.
There are people who gambled by not buying insurance when they thought they wouldn't need it, but that's where the idea for the individual mandate came from. It's a system with significant problems, but I don't see anyone coming up with a better idea that can actually get through Congress.
Genetic conditions have been legally barred from consideration as a factor for insurance costs since 2008 when Bush signed into law the Genetic Information Nondescrimination Act of 2008.
We actually get tested every two years (biennial flight review), unless in the WINGS program for ongoing education which does require some practical exercises with a flight instructor.
From my understanding, even if they do have quantum computers, it may still take eons. Quantum computers don't solve things instantly, and while they're faster against AES, they reduce the bit strength by about half, leaving 256-bit AES the equivalent of about 128 bit, still likely strong enough to withstand any reasonable amount of brute forcing. Depending on the speed of the quantum computer, even if going up against AES-128, the 64-bit equivalent may still be unbreakable for years.
Not in the two states that I've had licenses (California and Texas). They make it very clear that driving on public roads is a privilege. Texas Transportation Code Sec. 523 refers to "the privilege of driving a motor vehicle on the public highways" but does not refer to a right to drive anywhere.
I don't think any state has a right to drive in the law, and courts have declined to find a right to drive that I've ever been able to find. (They've affirmed a right to travel, but that's not the same thing as a right to drive.)
Most of the cities around me in the Dallas suburbs have populations of 50,000 or more. Even Dallas itself is iffy on that count. Public transit is not a realistic option unless you're forced to use it. Where I lived before, in Orange County, CA, it was even worse. Bus service tends to be either infrequent or severely packed, even with articulated buses that run relatively frequently. There is little rail service to speak of other than links to Los Angeles and Riverside.
I do enjoy using public transit when I can. Chicago, DC, NYC, and Newark were great for it, but they're definitely exceptions. Most cities, by the definition that you choose to use, require the ability to drive or to have access to a car to realistically get around.
Speaking as a fellow pilot (just a PPL, but still a pilot), our emergency scenarios tend to be a lot more extreme than those of cars. There's a reason that we take a lot of extra precautions and are in contact with someone who tracks our fellow vehicles, that we're required to have periodic health checks, and that we're required to periodically prove our competence: the penalties for failure in the real world are far higher.
Your proposal would involve retesting 20 million people per year, about 75,000 people a day, six days a week. The costs associated with requiring additional practical exams for drivers would be substantial in terms of both government outlays (additional examiners, space, equipment if you go for simulators, maintenance for the simulators) and to drivers, many of whom would likely be impacted by the costs of the test, not to mention additional costs incurred and triggered by those contesting revocations would likely be significant. The return would likely be minimal.
For those who are hit with citations for certain things, like reckless driving, or for any driving-related arrest, I can see requiring a new driving test within some short span, or even regular tests for some period of time. But on a general basis, I think it's a pretty severe overreach.
Those polls are interesting, but like the head-to-head matchups, they mean little this early. There are still major factors left, like vice presidential picks, that can shift things. Trump looks like he might be picking Christie (he's been in Trump's presence for a few days now), which could be helpful, though maybe not enough to head off a Clinton victory. Clinton could make an abysmal choice on a Palin level, which would definitely shift things towards the Republican nominee, though that kind of pick is unlikely from that family. If Trump takes the nomination, it's also possible that someone like Cruz or Carson could make a third-party run, which could draw some people from the sidelines.
In any case, there's always a sizable portion of those who say they'll just stay home early on that end up going to the election anyway, and the overwhelming majority if them vote their party.
My mother is a truck driver, and she doesn't keep two books. She's not an indie--that's more trouble than it's worth to her--but her truck makes use of telematics to track where she is, how fast she's going, and when she's stopped for fuel, food, or sleep. It's all electronically tracked and uploaded to dispatch, and her routes are sent to her, with zero deviation allowed. That bypass around Austin is not an option for her, because the minute she takes it, dispatch will be calling, telling her to return to the route or be sent home to await her next call whenever they get around to it. If she makes an unscheduled stop, even at a truck stop, she can be certain dispatch is going to be calling her within a few minutes to find out why. It's the same for all the major trucking companies, and a lot of the minor ones, too. The only thing she tracks herself is the days that she's on the road, because the IRS lets her claim a per diem deduction for each day she's driving.
Even the indies are going to have to move to this, as electronic logging devices are being mandated by more companies for independent truckers. A lot of them hate that they'll be tracked, ostensibly because of "Big Brother" but probably also because they're the ones that are skipping their mandated breaks, driving well above the speed limit, padding miles, etc.
Her truck, BTW, has all manner of safety features (it's a 2016 Freightliner), including lane assist, adaptive cruise control, and automatic transmission. (You don't normally think of an automatic transmission as a safety feature, but it keeps both hands on or at least available for the wheel. It also gets better fuel economy than manual gearshifts.) The adaptive cruise control can get annoying, apparently, because it can hit the brakes rather hard if someone crosses too fast into a lane. She likes it overall, but it has some frustrating moments. They've been told to expect new cameras to cover blind spots around the trailer and in front of the cab, as well as cab and forward cameras to watch traffic and the drivers. She's looking forward to the automated highway driving coming up in a few years (I think Volvo is looking at 2019 or something for theirs) because she'll be less fatigued when she's driving in traffic or the terminals. That automation will also likely better handle the circumstances that lead to jack-knife accidents, leading to fewer of them.
She's actually part of a driving team, which helps the efficiency, but even if she were driving solo, she'd be under the same tracking and restrictions. Accidents cost money, and companies that can be shown to have turned a blind eye to log abuse have paid some very hefty penalties. There are still a lot of indies that ignore the rules, but they're dying off (quite literally in some cases) and being replaced by people less likely to adhere to the old ways.
HTTP protocol improvement was on a slow track until Google introduced SPDY, and then that was used as the framework for HTTP/2. Note that Google didn't get everything it wanted--SPDY requires encryption, while HTTP/2 technically does not (though no major client is implementing it without requiring encryption). It also took input from many industry sources; Google may have been the motivator, but was not remotely the final decider.
I'm not sure about the claim behind TLSv1.3, but so what if Google got it started? The independent analyses I've seen suggest that it has substantial improvements (DH required, shorter handshake, some other things) over TLSv1.2, so why not go with it, especially since it's being done as an open standard?
At this point, we have so much legacy protocol cruft with everyone afraid to move forward for fear of breaking things that I'm happy to have Google push the boundaries. They don't win on everything (look at how many projects they've shut down because they don't get the hoped-for uptake), but they're willing to do things that improve the Internet as a whole.
Now, if they could just start working on a replacement for SMTP, maybe we could get some real improvements.
Goons, maybe, but not necessarily government goons (except what they might declare on their own). Think Somalia outside of the government enclave, and Afghanistan from the 1990s through mid-2000s (and even after that in some places). It's happened in other countries, too. Some currency may maintain value (especially US dollars and euros), but in the event of a US societal collapse, neither of those will be worth anything.
The smaller the object to be measured to a given degree, the greater the uncertainty. Measuring a 1kg mass to within a nanogram gives you a thousand times less uncertainty than measuring a 1g mass to within a nanogram.
If society collapses, no amount of "government goons" is going to prevent a major bartering economy emerging. It happens in every country that undergoes a true societal collapse.
Slashdot Mirror
Tariffs and boycotts were after-the-fact excuses. The one people blame was the Morrill Tariff, but Buchanan didn't sign that until March 1861, shortly before he left office and after seven states had already seceded (which also deprived opponents of the bill the number of senators needed to block its passage).
If Lincoln hadn't been elected, it's unlikely the states would have seceded, at least at that time. They feared the loss of the institution of slavery that they believed Lincoln would pursue. (He probably would have, but by winding it down over time and possibly compensating Southerners for their transition to a non-slave economy.)
Most criminal sentences run concurrently, so that would be six months in most cases.
As you say, history is complicated. You claim that the modern myth is that it was all about slaves, while many claim that it had nothing to do with slaves and was about states' rights, but the truth is more complicated.
The secessions themselves were triggered by slavery, or rather a perceived threat to slavery. The South feared that the incoming President Lincoln would try to reduce or even end slavery, and states started seceding even before he took office in March 1861, with seven of the eleven states that would secede publishing secession declarations by that time (and thus most seceded during the presidency of Buchanan, who did essentially nothing to stop it). Those declarations made very clear that secession was about protecting slavery.
Lincoln did want to see an end to slavery, but even more, he wanted to preserve the Union. In a letter to the editor of the New York Tribune, he wrote:
(Emphasis mine.)
He held this view honestly, as slaves in states that did not secede (plus some parishes in Louisiana and a few counties in Virginia that I believe were held by Union forces) were not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. The initial proclamation was made on 22 Sept 1862 and gave Confederate states until the end of the year to return to the Union, in which case they would be allowed to keep their slaves. After that, all slaves in rebel territory would be free in the eyes of the Union.
This came 17 months after the start of hostilities, after the victory of Union forces at Antietam when the South's General Robert E. Lee withdrew from the battlefield before the North's General George McClellan did. McClellan's victory was almost accidental, but it prevented victory in the first major incursion by Confederate forces into Union territory. The victory was important enough for Lincoln to seize it as the moment to publicly announce the Emancipation Proclamation, which made the Civil War about slavery in the North as well as in the South. From that point on, foreign nations who had abolished slavery could no longer risk recognizing the Confederacy as an independent nation, dooming the CSA's economy and what little chance they had at winning.
Except that the "'herd immunity' thing" isn't iffy at those levels, as we've seen over the last several decades. Locations that maintain high vaccination rates show very low or zero breakout frequency, and locations with low vaccination levels are far more likely to have breakouts.
You're also crediting anti-vaxxers with a lot more integrity than they often have. They won't quote you specifically. They'll say that they read some vaccination supporter admit that the vaccines are nowhere near 100% effective. Those who are curious won't be able to tie it back to you to see that you actually support vaccination.
I realize what you're saying and that you support vaccination, but the phrasing here made me cringe. Its the kind of thing anti-vaxxers jump on, along the lines of "Even supporters agree that they're nowhere near 100% effective."
Most vaccines are in the nineties when it comes to percent effectiveness, and some of them do near 100% effectiveness. I'd call even 90% effective "nearly all" because, with sufficient portions of the populated being vaccinated, an infection is not likely to get very far.
They're required to attempt to protect shareholder value. They are not required to pursue every last penny of profit from every possible source.
Charity still represents a loss of profit. All it does is reduce taxable income. It's deducted from gross income, but there's still a loss of profits associated with it. If a company donates $1000 and pays 30% in taxes, its tax bill is reduced by only $300. The rest of the $700 is lost profits.
There are plenty of conflict resources that are perfectly legal to purchase, but which companies choose to source from elsewhere despite higher costs because it's the right thing to do. This is not a case of maximizing profits.
This is the issue that I have with people that make the claim that companies are required to turn the maximum profit. They're not. Publicly traded companies are required to take actions to try to protect shareholder value, but that does not mean turning over every rock in case a penny can be found under it. People making such claims frequently do not understand how the system works even in the slightest.
What fiduciary duty is that?
Cruz may not be able to win the nomination, but he's not out of the race yet. He can still spoil it for what chance Rubio has left.
Of course, the reverse is also true. If either Cruz or Rubio dropped out, the remaining candidate would have a far better chance against Trump.
Sometimes "playing the lottery" isn't a choice. There are plenty of people who fell between the cracks of being eligible for Medicaid and having parents able to afford medical insurance. There are also many cases where someone had insurance but lost their job, couldn't afford COBRA, got diagnosed, and then later tried to get insurance and was denied.
There are people who gambled by not buying insurance when they thought they wouldn't need it, but that's where the idea for the individual mandate came from. It's a system with significant problems, but I don't see anyone coming up with a better idea that can actually get through Congress.
Genetic conditions have been legally barred from consideration as a factor for insurance costs since 2008 when Bush signed into law the Genetic Information Nondescrimination Act of 2008.
We actually get tested every two years (biennial flight review), unless in the WINGS program for ongoing education which does require some practical exercises with a flight instructor.
From my understanding, even if they do have quantum computers, it may still take eons. Quantum computers don't solve things instantly, and while they're faster against AES, they reduce the bit strength by about half, leaving 256-bit AES the equivalent of about 128 bit, still likely strong enough to withstand any reasonable amount of brute forcing. Depending on the speed of the quantum computer, even if going up against AES-128, the 64-bit equivalent may still be unbreakable for years.
Not in the two states that I've had licenses (California and Texas). They make it very clear that driving on public roads is a privilege. Texas Transportation Code Sec. 523 refers to "the privilege of driving a motor vehicle on the public highways" but does not refer to a right to drive anywhere.
I don't think any state has a right to drive in the law, and courts have declined to find a right to drive that I've ever been able to find. (They've affirmed a right to travel, but that's not the same thing as a right to drive.)
Most of the cities around me in the Dallas suburbs have populations of 50,000 or more. Even Dallas itself is iffy on that count. Public transit is not a realistic option unless you're forced to use it. Where I lived before, in Orange County, CA, it was even worse. Bus service tends to be either infrequent or severely packed, even with articulated buses that run relatively frequently. There is little rail service to speak of other than links to Los Angeles and Riverside.
I do enjoy using public transit when I can. Chicago, DC, NYC, and Newark were great for it, but they're definitely exceptions. Most cities, by the definition that you choose to use, require the ability to drive or to have access to a car to realistically get around.
Speaking as a fellow pilot (just a PPL, but still a pilot), our emergency scenarios tend to be a lot more extreme than those of cars. There's a reason that we take a lot of extra precautions and are in contact with someone who tracks our fellow vehicles, that we're required to have periodic health checks, and that we're required to periodically prove our competence: the penalties for failure in the real world are far higher.
Your proposal would involve retesting 20 million people per year, about 75,000 people a day, six days a week. The costs associated with requiring additional practical exams for drivers would be substantial in terms of both government outlays (additional examiners, space, equipment if you go for simulators, maintenance for the simulators) and to drivers, many of whom would likely be impacted by the costs of the test, not to mention additional costs incurred and triggered by those contesting revocations would likely be significant. The return would likely be minimal.
For those who are hit with citations for certain things, like reckless driving, or for any driving-related arrest, I can see requiring a new driving test within some short span, or even regular tests for some period of time. But on a general basis, I think it's a pretty severe overreach.
Those polls are interesting, but like the head-to-head matchups, they mean little this early. There are still major factors left, like vice presidential picks, that can shift things. Trump looks like he might be picking Christie (he's been in Trump's presence for a few days now), which could be helpful, though maybe not enough to head off a Clinton victory. Clinton could make an abysmal choice on a Palin level, which would definitely shift things towards the Republican nominee, though that kind of pick is unlikely from that family. If Trump takes the nomination, it's also possible that someone like Cruz or Carson could make a third-party run, which could draw some people from the sidelines.
In any case, there's always a sizable portion of those who say they'll just stay home early on that end up going to the election anyway, and the overwhelming majority if them vote their party.
My mother is a truck driver, and she doesn't keep two books. She's not an indie--that's more trouble than it's worth to her--but her truck makes use of telematics to track where she is, how fast she's going, and when she's stopped for fuel, food, or sleep. It's all electronically tracked and uploaded to dispatch, and her routes are sent to her, with zero deviation allowed. That bypass around Austin is not an option for her, because the minute she takes it, dispatch will be calling, telling her to return to the route or be sent home to await her next call whenever they get around to it. If she makes an unscheduled stop, even at a truck stop, she can be certain dispatch is going to be calling her within a few minutes to find out why. It's the same for all the major trucking companies, and a lot of the minor ones, too. The only thing she tracks herself is the days that she's on the road, because the IRS lets her claim a per diem deduction for each day she's driving.
Even the indies are going to have to move to this, as electronic logging devices are being mandated by more companies for independent truckers. A lot of them hate that they'll be tracked, ostensibly because of "Big Brother" but probably also because they're the ones that are skipping their mandated breaks, driving well above the speed limit, padding miles, etc.
Her truck, BTW, has all manner of safety features (it's a 2016 Freightliner), including lane assist, adaptive cruise control, and automatic transmission. (You don't normally think of an automatic transmission as a safety feature, but it keeps both hands on or at least available for the wheel. It also gets better fuel economy than manual gearshifts.) The adaptive cruise control can get annoying, apparently, because it can hit the brakes rather hard if someone crosses too fast into a lane. She likes it overall, but it has some frustrating moments. They've been told to expect new cameras to cover blind spots around the trailer and in front of the cab, as well as cab and forward cameras to watch traffic and the drivers. She's looking forward to the automated highway driving coming up in a few years (I think Volvo is looking at 2019 or something for theirs) because she'll be less fatigued when she's driving in traffic or the terminals. That automation will also likely better handle the circumstances that lead to jack-knife accidents, leading to fewer of them.
She's actually part of a driving team, which helps the efficiency, but even if she were driving solo, she'd be under the same tracking and restrictions. Accidents cost money, and companies that can be shown to have turned a blind eye to log abuse have paid some very hefty penalties. There are still a lot of indies that ignore the rules, but they're dying off (quite literally in some cases) and being replaced by people less likely to adhere to the old ways.
No, just hungry.
HTTP protocol improvement was on a slow track until Google introduced SPDY, and then that was used as the framework for HTTP/2. Note that Google didn't get everything it wanted--SPDY requires encryption, while HTTP/2 technically does not (though no major client is implementing it without requiring encryption). It also took input from many industry sources; Google may have been the motivator, but was not remotely the final decider.
I'm not sure about the claim behind TLSv1.3, but so what if Google got it started? The independent analyses I've seen suggest that it has substantial improvements (DH required, shorter handshake, some other things) over TLSv1.2, so why not go with it, especially since it's being done as an open standard?
At this point, we have so much legacy protocol cruft with everyone afraid to move forward for fear of breaking things that I'm happy to have Google push the boundaries. They don't win on everything (look at how many projects they've shut down because they don't get the hoped-for uptake), but they're willing to do things that improve the Internet as a whole.
Now, if they could just start working on a replacement for SMTP, maybe we could get some real improvements.
Goons, maybe, but not necessarily government goons (except what they might declare on their own). Think Somalia outside of the government enclave, and Afghanistan from the 1990s through mid-2000s (and even after that in some places). It's happened in other countries, too. Some currency may maintain value (especially US dollars and euros), but in the event of a US societal collapse, neither of those will be worth anything.
That's what "1000 times less" refers to. Multiplication is part of that, and the "less" implies division.
The smaller the object to be measured to a given degree, the greater the uncertainty. Measuring a 1kg mass to within a nanogram gives you a thousand times less uncertainty than measuring a 1g mass to within a nanogram.
If society collapses, no amount of "government goons" is going to prevent a major bartering economy emerging. It happens in every country that undergoes a true societal collapse.
You won't be able to do anything wit a $100 bill, either.