It's a bigger right than the freedom from forcible searches.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I think you're implicitly asserting that all searches with consent of the citizen are reasonable. I don't agree with that, in that I believe searches can be unreasonable even with consent. E.g., the Fourth Ammendment probits the governement from installing a camera in random people's bedrooms, even if for some reason they agree to it.
Things that travel on the ground don't need to be attacked from within by passengers. Someone who wants to bomb a train doesn't need to sneak a bomb onto it, they just need to walk up to the tracks when the train is coming and drop the bomb on the tracks. Or they can skip the bomb and derail the train by attacking the tracks with hand tools, etc.
That can't be right; that would mean the plot of Under Seige 2 made no sense.
Taken to its logical conclusion, the only business activity that makes money is accepting payments. Sales is only creating the promise of a payment, so it's a cost center.
That's obviously vacuous, because people don't just send you payments; you have to make a sale and provide something. Every business unit has inputs and outputs. If you can assign dollar values correctly to those inputs and outputs, then you know how that business unit is doing.
There are 3 such games: Craps, Blackjack and Baccarat. Poker is promoted so heavily, because it makes the Casinos so much lucre.
Yeah, no. Poker is not a great casino money-maker. It's a way to draw players into the building for the more lucrative games
There are many professional and semi-professional poker players. I'm sure there are some successful blackjack players, perhaps like the article is suggesting, but nothing on the scale of poker.
Think about it -- player poker profits are fueled by the innumeracy of the general population. This is an abundant resource.
The textbook providers are capitalist enterprises. The article correctly points out that their incentives are to do whatever it takes to sell books, not to provide the best possible books..
If "whatever it takes to sell books" isn't making the best possible books, there's something wrong with the buyers, not just the sellers.
But the more narrowly the insurance company focuses on the exact risk I have, the closer they get to offering no value, because I might as well carry the risk myself.
Even if they exactly assess my personal risk, it seems they can still provide a protection against the timing of the loss.
Suppose people roll a die every month. When anyone rolls a 1, he loses $100,000. If the insurer figures out that some people are rolling 6-sided dice and some are rolling 20-sided dice, he can lower the rates on the people with 20-sided dice to $5000 + profit to attract their business. Everyone knows the risks and the amount the insurance company is profiting, but the customer still avoids the catastrophic effect on his cash flow. So, this insurance is basically a conditional loan.
On the other hand, if the insurer has a perfect deterministic model for the die-rolling, he can set the rate to $0 + profit on the months he knows the customer will roll numbers other than 1 and set the rate to $100,000 + profit on the months he knows the customer will roll a 1. That doesn't do anything to manage the customer's risk. It's an information service. In the case of the auto insurance, if my insurance company could predict with certainty that I will have a wreck on Feb. 9 and charge me $15,000/day on Feb. 9, I could took take the damn bus.
On the one hand you can in many jurisdictions legally shoot (take the life of) someone that trespasses your land/ house or car and on the other hand you can be locked up for modifying your own paid for appliance.
Don't worry; these inconsistencies will soon be addressed by the court system. Apple will be able to legally shoot you for modifying a phone.
The short answer is whatever happens to be trendy at the time. One year, carbs will be all the rage. The next, they'll be bad.
I've been frustrated by mixed messages, too. On the other hand, the thing that the mothers and experts have been saying for decades is to eat more vegetables. And Americans don't do it, because they don't want to, not because they are ill-informed.
Even so, it's still a lot more sensible than bailing out the banks and auto industries, going to war in Iraq, the war on drugs, militarizing the police force, handing the money to the TSA, etc.
It's a lot cheaper, too, and might actually be useful to somebody if they build it.
I think this is all true but is still the wrong standard to apply. We're in trouble if our logic is, "It's not stupider than the war on drugs; therefore, let's do it." If we have a fixed dollar amount and we were deciding to either fight the war on drugs or build a high speed rail with it, then the comparison would be relevant.
Just Social Security. Think about that for a moment. We spend as much on that as we do on the military, which is one of the only functions of the federal government which no one disputes is a constitutionally-defined function of the federal government.
The military spending we're actually doing isn't constitutional either. Congress has not declared a war. There's no consitutional authorization that allows the creation of the standing army waging that war.
It's the corporations saying we don't have choices. Government isn't saying anything at all, which allows these corporations to develop local monopolies.
Local governments have been granting artificial monopolies to promote adoption.
What about other papers that reference this one? We wouldn't exactly want to cascade delete, because the dependency might not be complete, but a system for reviewing all of the referring papers would be nice.
There are plenty of students who majored in very reasonable and marketable courses of study and came out with a mountain of debt and dramatically worse job prospects than what were available when they began their studies. These people have a very real complaint.
There are people who didn't go to college at all due to the costs and got blue collar jobs instead. They chose not to create this risk. It's not fair to them to require them to pay for defaulted student loans, because the blue collar workers don't share in the benefit if the risk succeeds for the college student.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a bigger right than the freedom from forcible searches.
I think you're implicitly asserting that all searches with consent of the citizen are reasonable. I don't agree with that, in that I believe searches can be unreasonable even with consent. E.g., the Fourth Ammendment probits the governement from installing a camera in random people's bedrooms, even if for some reason they agree to it.
Perhaps if it had a label we could answer this question.
The claim isn't that the phone makes him safe. We know that he wasn't in danger because of what he said on the phone.
That can't be right; that would mean the plot of Under Seige 2 made no sense.
These aren't expensive handbags. What does counterfeit mean? Do the parts meet the specifications?
Taken to its logical conclusion, the only business activity that makes money is accepting payments. Sales is only creating the promise of a payment, so it's a cost center.
That's obviously vacuous, because people don't just send you payments; you have to make a sale and provide something. Every business unit has inputs and outputs. If you can assign dollar values correctly to those inputs and outputs, then you know how that business unit is doing.
They drown everyone first in the special edition.
Yeah, no. Poker is not a great casino money-maker. It's a way to draw players into the building for the more lucrative games
There are many professional and semi-professional poker players. I'm sure there are some successful blackjack players, perhaps like the article is suggesting, but nothing on the scale of poker.
Think about it -- player poker profits are fueled by the innumeracy of the general population. This is an abundant resource.
The textbook providers are capitalist enterprises. The article correctly points out that their incentives are to do whatever it takes to sell books, not to provide the best possible books..
If "whatever it takes to sell books" isn't making the best possible books, there's something wrong with the buyers, not just the sellers.
Rumblefish is really cutting the bird a break by not coming after him.
Needs to drop an order of magnitude to be competitive, unless it's much cheaper than expected.
DNAcat is coming soon.
Even if they exactly assess my personal risk, it seems they can still provide a protection against the timing of the loss.
Suppose people roll a die every month. When anyone rolls a 1, he loses $100,000. If the insurer figures out that some people are rolling 6-sided dice and some are rolling 20-sided dice, he can lower the rates on the people with 20-sided dice to $5000 + profit to attract their business. Everyone knows the risks and the amount the insurance company is profiting, but the customer still avoids the catastrophic effect on his cash flow. So, this insurance is basically a conditional loan.
On the other hand, if the insurer has a perfect deterministic model for the die-rolling, he can set the rate to $0 + profit on the months he knows the customer will roll numbers other than 1 and set the rate to $100,000 + profit on the months he knows the customer will roll a 1. That doesn't do anything to manage the customer's risk. It's an information service. In the case of the auto insurance, if my insurance company could predict with certainty that I will have a wreck on Feb. 9 and charge me $15,000/day on Feb. 9, I could took take the damn bus.
Don't worry; these inconsistencies will soon be addressed by the court system. Apple will be able to legally shoot you for modifying a phone.
This isn't the current thinking. It's not very good, but there's a net gain.
There certainly won't be any motivation to write the records for an audience with no access to the record. Something has to come first.
I'm an advocate of patient's keeping a complete copy of their records.
The way it works everywhere else is that fat people get paid more in the form of health care benefits.
The short answer is whatever happens to be trendy at the time. One year, carbs will be all the rage. The next, they'll be bad.
I've been frustrated by mixed messages, too. On the other hand, the thing that the mothers and experts have been saying for decades is to eat more vegetables. And Americans don't do it, because they don't want to, not because they are ill-informed.
Being high in protein (certainly to the extent that pizza is) is not a problem.
Taking the fiber out of the grain is a problem. Excessive fat is a problem.
I think this is all true but is still the wrong standard to apply. We're in trouble if our logic is, "It's not stupider than the war on drugs; therefore, let's do it." If we have a fixed dollar amount and we were deciding to either fight the war on drugs or build a high speed rail with it, then the comparison would be relevant.
The military spending we're actually doing isn't constitutional either. Congress has not declared a war. There's no consitutional authorization that allows the creation of the standing army waging that war.
Local governments have been granting artificial monopolies to promote adoption.
JavaScript is something a newbie might want to try out. Newbies ask more questions.
I don't think that's a reflection on the difficulty of JavaScript.
What about other papers that reference this one? We wouldn't exactly want to cascade delete, because the dependency might not be complete, but a system for reviewing all of the referring papers would be nice.
Shit, me too. Stop it.
There are people who didn't go to college at all due to the costs and got blue collar jobs instead. They chose not to create this risk. It's not fair to them to require them to pay for defaulted student loans, because the blue collar workers don't share in the benefit if the risk succeeds for the college student.