* The only data fed to the program is geographic markers the will provide convenient district borders (railroad lines, roads, rivers, county and city borders, etc.) and the number of people within each section.
The program will be fair because the kind of data that allows gerrymandering simply won't be permitted as input. Any sneaky attempts to use something like population density as a proxy will be something anyone can find and complain about in the open source code.
I really like your idea of making district boundary-drawing be more repeatable and open. However, I don't understand the difference between the number of people within each section and population density; would you please explain?
It would seem to me that drawing up districts should start out like drawing a topographical map. After dividing the landmass up into smallish-units (like a grid), the districting would start with the unit of highest population density and expand out from there (using a mathematical formula of the gradient of the population density) by adding more units to an area until the district it builds reaches the pre-determined minimum number of people in it without going over some pre-determined maximum. Each district would be required to be within, say, ~0.1% of the ideal number.
I'm sure this ideas has lots of holes in it; I've not spent any time studying it.
How could anyone, in 2014, have thought this was acceptable?
Not to detract from your justified indignation, but I at least take hope in this "11/19 3:09pm" update posted to the bottom of TFA:
Barbie issued the following apology on its Facebook page: The Barbie I Can Be A Computer Engineer book was published in 2010. Since that time we have reworked our Barbie books. The portrayal of Barbie in this specific story doesn't reflect the Brand's vision for what Barbie stands for. We believe girls should be empowered to understand that anything is possible and believe they live in a world without limits. We apologize that this book didn't reflect that belief. All Barbie titles moving forward will be written to inspire girls imaginations and portray an empowered Barbie character.
Not having regulations worked out really well, didn't it? It only cost us taxpayers a few billion dollars to clean up the mess.
The cost to us taxpayers was not due to the lack of regulations, but rather because our so-called representatives voted to bail out the supposed `too big to fail` organizations. Letting those organizations fail -- meaning those directly involved would bear the most pain while the rest of the nation suffers the side-effects -- was an option... though not a desirable one.
My opinion is that there would have been a benefit in having those directly responsible suffer the most so that they would be a warning to future crooks (err, I mean businessmen) and for us all to suffer a little so society learns to not let organizations get `too big to fail`. As it turned out, however, the crooks got off privatizing profits and socializing their losses and we as a society continue to down the same mistaken road as before.
Then I demand you produce the evidence that she wasn't. This is silly to demand that I produce evidence,
There use to be this ideal of "innocent until proven guilty". What makes you trust this woman so much? The NPR article didn't state why she was anonymous. (I assume she said she didn't want to give her name, as I believe 911 operators normally ask.) You don't find it odd that this woman -- who has supposedly been wronged by the truck driver -- wanted to remain anonymous? Why remain anonymous when she could be helping to put a drunk or dangerous driver behind bars?
Perhaps he didn't run her off, but now you have to produce some sort of sane argumemnt that a stoned guy was randomly selected by a lying woman just to screw with him.
The article didn't state the truck driver was stoned. How do you know that?
Why do you assume this was random? It could have been an ex-girlfriend wanting to screw over the guy. It could have been a woman from another drug gang wanting to mess with this guy's business. It could have been a female Federal agent wanting to create a parallel construction of evidence.
You do know that making a false report on 911 is a crime, don't you?
Why does that matter to crazy ex-girlfriends, female drug gang members and corrupt female Federal agents (or the other examples one could come up with)?
The story isn't about where they went, and isn't even relevant to the thrust of the story, which is if people are allowed to call 911 to report crime. The perp's layer is arguing that since the tip came from an anonymous source, it was invalid.
Of course people are allowed to call 911 to report a crime, but one needs to make sure that reporting is not abused by either the callers or law enforcement. (I.e. the "parallel construction of evidence" mentioned above.) And one needs to make sure constitutional rights (the right to face one's accuser, for one) are protected.
An anonymous call, by itself, warrants just the smallest of investigations -- in this case, the law enforcement official followed the vehicle and did not see any evidence of wrong doing. That should have been the end of it. The woman apparently did not want to press charges or even testify since it is assumed she refused to give her name.
The original poster was pointing out the very relevant fact that there was no other evidence to support the allegation that this man ran this woman off the road: no erratic driving, no witness that can be cross-examined, no highway reports of damage where the car was forced off the road, etc. the police would have been totally justified in stopping this man if they did witness erratic driving, or the woman did give her name to be a witness or if there was some other evidence to support the allegation.
911 calls are recorded and used as evidence all the time. When reporting a crime, the 911 center does not make the person swear on a bible that they are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. But they are still used as evidence.
I've only heard of them being used as evidence when the caller is identified, but I could be wrong on that. I suspect in this case, however, you'd need to have the caller identified since if the run-off-the-road case was taken to trial, the defendant has a right to cross-examine witnesses.
As for her continued anonymity, they could certainly retrieve that information, and use voiceprints to confirm that it was indeed her making the phone call. Did they? I dunno, you'd need the transcripts of the trial.
In effect, the IRS is treating Bitcoin like any other "foreign" currency, which amounts to the same thing as treating it as property.
I don't believe that is right. From my understanding of the 2 possible ways of treating Bitcoin, it can either be treated like a commodity (property) and taxed at capital gain rates or it could be treated like a currency with gains taxed at the normal rates -- but with a $200 gain per incident exemption. Please see the "Characterization of Income from Bitcoin Sales" section of Tyler S. Robbins' primer on Bitcoin taxation in the U.S.
Today, the IRS has said they are treating it like the former and not the latter. Either way would make it inconvenient for those wanting to follow the rules, but if they had treated it like a foreign currency at least the $200 gain exemption would have taken the burden of keeping records off of many purchases.
I'm hoping you're just a troll (and that I'm falling for you), because it would be really sad that you totally missed what the parent (and many repliers) were actually quoting from:
Which is exactly why many slashdot conservatives - many of whom are fascists under the guise of "ron paul libertarians" - would be against this company releasing this information.
I'm sorry, but what?! I have never met someone claiming to be a Ron Paul Libertarian (of whom I've seen many comments here on Slashdot from) express opinions that promote the military-industrial complex, the keeping of secrets of government action by force or the trampling of individual rights. Conservative fascists hiding themselves as Ron Paul Libertarians would be like Neo-Nazi skinheads hiding amongst members of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League.
With that said, I have seen people who blindly oppose whatever the `other team` is doing or blindly supporting what `their team` is doing without respect to principles -- but I've mostly seen that in the real world in partisan venues. (Fox, MSNBC, etc.) I don't see it here on Slashdot, as much.
And by using affiliates as a sales force, a "significant business nexus" is established in the purchaser's State. Hence, they have to collect sales tax for the purchaser's State, because they pay a sales force there.
I admit I do not authoritatively know how Amazon's affiliate program works. I read TFA and have listened to some pod casts that want listeners to make Amazon purchases through their link. I'm not sure how accurate it is to describe or catagorize Amazon affiliates as a sales force.
I have trouble seeing how the commission an affiliate receives is that significantly different than paying for an outright ad. For example, if a mail-order company took out an ad in The New York Times but listed an order-taking phone number that was specific & unique to that TNYT ad, and the mail-order company made a deal with TNYT to pay them a little extra every time an order is placed using that phone number... I am now to believe that creates a "substantial nexus" of the mail-order company in New York state?
What it would come down to, for me, is how Amazon pays their affiliates. If Amazon was paying them as employees, then that would justify claiming they are Amazon's sales force. (I think it is a fair assumption that Amazon is not doing that.) If Amazon is paying them proportionately on the click-through purchases, then I don't see how it can be treated anything other than an ad contract.
If that is the case, then there is nothing to stop New York state from expanding their law to demand any out-of-state advertiser in a New York publication, TV, radio station or website start collecting sales tax for anything sold to a New York resident.
Since these warrants tend to be used for national security investigations, such as into spying and terrorism, how to you think that telling people they are being investigated isn't a bad thing?
I think the story mixes FISA warrants and Patriot Act National Security Letters (NSLs). I don't know about FISA warrants, but I've read that recipients of NSLs are forbidden from saying anything to anyone about having received them. I would not be surprised to learn the Federal government claims the same authority for FISA warrants.
Recipients of these NSLs and FISA warrants are not complaining because they cannot tell the subject of the investigation. They are complaining about the gag order -- even to the extent that they cannot publish statistics on how many government requests they've received.
The Catholic Church forbids all messing with creation of life. IVF is forbidden. Certainly artificial wombs would be considered an abomination.
I completely agree with your belief that the Catholic Church would find it morally unacceptable to artificially conceive a child and place it in an artificial womb. However, I think they would find it morally acceptable to transplant a child from the womb to an artificial one if the mother could not, for medical reasons, carry the child to term or if there was a problem with the child that made it easier to treat the child if he/she was in an artificial womb.
But, like you wrote, transplanting an already-implanted embryo is beyond our current capabilities. Who knows what we will be capable of in the future.
it seems to me there was a point, when she could of just walked away, and instead she came back to argue, bitch, or whatever.
But there was a point there when she could of just left, like they were letting her do, and she didn't.
It is my understanding (sorry, I don't have the time to find a reference right now) that once a person enters the security-checking area one cannot leave without being checked. This is supposedly to stop terrorist test runs. "Oh, they're using that scanning machine today; that will catch me. I better come back and try again tomorrow."
And one about a similar time viewer (I forget the name).
Perhaps you are thinking of The Dead Past by Isaac Asimov. That story features a researcher-for-hire's attempt to build a chronoscope in a society where all academic research is highly regulated and research into time-viewing is very restricted. It has a thought-provoking ending.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with playing in a porno or even in a theatre production.
I would not watch the porn with them in it though.
I truly find your comment interesting. Please do not think my comment is some moral critique; I really am just curious about why you feel that way and how it lines up (or doesn't) with my thoughts on the topic.
Why wouldn't you watch the porn film with your mother, wife or daughter acting in it? Is it just because you wouldn't be as stimulated by seeing (for example) your mother as you would a stranger? (I.e. the `ick` factor?) This is a serious question: what if your mother was a really good actress? I.e. if she wore a wig and make-up that didn't make it obvious she was your mother -- or maybe the pornography just didn't show her face that much -- would you feel more comfortable watching her perform?
Although I do not support legislation to outlaw pornography, the knowledge that the women in it are somebody's mother, daughter, sister or, sometimes even, wife causes me to pause and think: "is it moral for me to treat this woman differently than I'd want my mother, daughter, sister or wife treated? If so, why?" Why would I be willing to patronize those women I know & love in any other line of work but not this one?
I've come to realize it isn't just the `ick` factor; I believe there is something de-humanizing about acting in pornography. I think the viewer does not appreciate the actress for the whole human she is, but instead reduces her to a status or respect level something below what one would want for the other women in his life.
Great. I'm glad they're patching security vulnerabilities in their 32-bit product. But why do 64-bit users have to use a vulnerable version from 7 months ago?
Supposedly some of these spent fuel rods in building #4 caught fire
First off, the fuel pellets in these boiling water reactors are made of uranium dioxide -- a ceramic which has a melting point of 2,865 degrees Celsius and the zircaloy cladding melts somewhere in the range of 1,850 to 1,975 degrees Celsius (depends on which alloy they are using). I could not even find a combustion temperature for either material. That doesn't matter, though, because the temperature of the spent fuel in the pool would be somewhere around 200 degrees Celsius, depending on how long it had been taken out of the reactor.
So it is unreasonable to speculate that the fuel rods have `caught fire`.
I would strongly suggest anybody interested in following this event watch that web page and/or this one for accurate, knowledgeable, non-scaremongering reporting. I've heard too many news reports totally screw the facts up. (Like when they reported there was a 3rd explosion when really it was the 2nd explosion that happened in the #3 reactor building.)
You cannot blame *any* OS for poor administrator configuration of rights. Blame the sysadmin.
Although I understand and mostly agree with the point you are making, I think it is worth noting that Microsoft operating systems do share a large chunk of the blame.
Microsoft operating systems have never been easy for a home user to use when logged in as a non-Administrator. (I single out home users since I believe they are the majority of drive-by-download victims.) They all have their little `gotchas` when trying to temporarily elevating one's normal user privileges to that of administrator to accomplish a task.
Have you ever tried to setup a person as a non-Administrator on Windows XP Home? Microsoft purposely hobbled that OS to make it impossible to work with the system like an administrator should be able to. At least it is getting better, from what I've heard about Windows Vista Home and 7 Home. (So I've heard. I stopped supporting Home versions of Microsoft operating systems after the headaches caused by XP Home.)
So I feel like one certainly can blame the OS for encouraging users to run as administrators when those OSes make it overly difficult or impossible to temporarily increase privileges to accomplish needed tasks.
It sounds like Suddenlink has somewhat of a monopoly in your area. If that is the case, they are probably regulated by your local government. Although I am not optimistic this will have much effect, you should complain to the franchise authority / regulatory commission that oversees Suddenlink.
If enough people did, Suddenlink would have no choice but to deep-six this program.
It's easy to find information on astronomy, chemistry, physics, mathematics, radio, electricity, etc, etc, etc. But radioactivity? Not a chance. How close to I have to be to an exposed nuclear rod before I am "at risk"? 10 meters? 100 meters? A kilometer? In orbit? Give me graphs. Give me numbers. Help me understand.
The study of protecting individuals and the public from the potentially harmful effects of radiation is known as Health Physics. Every industry that uses radiation sources -- hospitals, nuclear power plants, materials engineering facilities, etc. -- employs health physicists.
I would recommend looking at the Health Physics Society web page and possibly contacting them. They are a professional organization made up of people in the field -- people whose jobs are to detect & measure radiation; inspect facilities; and write, understand & enforce various regulations.
I think that before any new nuclear facility is licensed, its operators should be required to pay in advance for the disposal of its spent fuel. I don't think it's right that the cost should be borne by the taxpayer.
Operators do pay into a disposal fund. Unfortunately politicians have been dipping into that fund for non-disposal purposes.
TFA is not a news article, it is a guest editorial by a friend ("amicus") of the defendants. So, it is very slanted as to why minimum resale price agreements should continue to be in violation of antitrust laws. Knowing there is always two sides to a story, I sought out that other side and found this from the Ayn Rand Institute:
Please note that by posting this, I am not saying I support the Ayn Rand Institute's side; I mearly think it is important to hear both sides of the debate. In this case, I think the Institute does a poor job of convincing the public that their position in in our best interest.
It may also be used in copies of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, which is often licensed on a subscription model. Once the subscription expires, many companies typically end up using it anyway. Perhaps Red Hat is interested in stopping this.
I would guess your proposed situation is not a significant problem for Red Hat. Purchasers of Red Hat Enterprise Linux are large corporations that want the backing of their vendors. The way it works is that when one `purchases` Red Hat Enterprise Linux, the license one agrees to is for their support & updates. The money one pays Red Hat is for that technical support and `subscription` to the Red Hat Network in order to download & install updates. So, those large corporations are not going to let their subscription lapse because they want the support & updates. I would guess it would be extremely rare for any of Red Hat's enterprise customers to let their subscription lapse and run non-updated & non-supported RHEL products.
Slashdot Mirror
I really like your idea of making district boundary-drawing be more repeatable and open. However, I don't understand the difference between the number of people within each section and population density; would you please explain?
It would seem to me that drawing up districts should start out like drawing a topographical map. After dividing the landmass up into smallish-units (like a grid), the districting would start with the unit of highest population density and expand out from there (using a mathematical formula of the gradient of the population density) by adding more units to an area until the district it builds reaches the pre-determined minimum number of people in it without going over some pre-determined maximum. Each district would be required to be within, say, ~0.1% of the ideal number.
I'm sure this ideas has lots of holes in it; I've not spent any time studying it.
Not to detract from your justified indignation, but I at least take hope in this "11/19 3:09pm" update posted to the bottom of TFA:
The cost to us taxpayers was not due to the lack of regulations, but rather because our so-called representatives voted to bail out the supposed `too big to fail` organizations. Letting those organizations fail -- meaning those directly involved would bear the most pain while the rest of the nation suffers the side-effects -- was an option... though not a desirable one.
My opinion is that there would have been a benefit in having those directly responsible suffer the most so that they would be a warning to future crooks (err, I mean businessmen) and for us all to suffer a little so society learns to not let organizations get `too big to fail`. As it turned out, however, the crooks got off privatizing profits and socializing their losses and we as a society continue to down the same mistaken road as before.
There use to be this ideal of "innocent until proven guilty". What makes you trust this woman so much? The NPR article didn't state why she was anonymous. (I assume she said she didn't want to give her name, as I believe 911 operators normally ask.) You don't find it odd that this woman -- who has supposedly been wronged by the truck driver -- wanted to remain anonymous? Why remain anonymous when she could be helping to put a drunk or dangerous driver behind bars?
The article didn't state the truck driver was stoned. How do you know that?
Why do you assume this was random? It could have been an ex-girlfriend wanting to screw over the guy. It could have been a woman from another drug gang wanting to mess with this guy's business. It could have been a female Federal agent wanting to create a parallel construction of evidence.
Why does that matter to crazy ex-girlfriends, female drug gang members and corrupt female Federal agents (or the other examples one could come up with)?
Of course people are allowed to call 911 to report a crime, but one needs to make sure that reporting is not abused by either the callers or law enforcement. (I.e. the "parallel construction of evidence" mentioned above.) And one needs to make sure constitutional rights (the right to face one's accuser, for one) are protected.
An anonymous call, by itself, warrants just the smallest of investigations -- in this case, the law enforcement official followed the vehicle and did not see any evidence of wrong doing. That should have been the end of it. The woman apparently did not want to press charges or even testify since it is assumed she refused to give her name.
The original poster was pointing out the very relevant fact that there was no other evidence to support the allegation that this man ran this woman off the road: no erratic driving, no witness that can be cross-examined, no highway reports of damage where the car was forced off the road, etc. the police would have been totally justified in stopping this man if they did witness erratic driving, or the woman did give her name to be a witness or if there was some other evidence to support the allegation.
I've only heard of them being used as evidence when the caller is identified, but I could be wrong on that. I suspect in this case, however, you'd need to have the caller identified since if the run-off-the-road case was taken to trial, the defendant has a right to cross-examine witnesses.
This may be the poor repo
I don't believe that is right. From my understanding of the 2 possible ways of treating Bitcoin, it can either be treated like a commodity (property) and taxed at capital gain rates or it could be treated like a currency with gains taxed at the normal rates -- but with a $200 gain per incident exemption. Please see the "Characterization of Income from Bitcoin Sales" section of Tyler S. Robbins' primer on Bitcoin taxation in the U.S.
Today, the IRS has said they are treating it like the former and not the latter. Either way would make it inconvenient for those wanting to follow the rules, but if they had treated it like a foreign currency at least the $200 gain exemption would have taken the burden of keeping records off of many purchases.
Hear, hear! You said that very well.
I'm hoping you're just a troll (and that I'm falling for you), because it would be really sad that you totally missed what the parent (and many repliers) were actually quoting from:
The Jerk
Wish I had mod points. Congrats on righting yourself. More parents need to learn from your parents' mistake.
I'm sorry, but what?! I have never met someone claiming to be a Ron Paul Libertarian (of whom I've seen many comments here on Slashdot from) express opinions that promote the military-industrial complex, the keeping of secrets of government action by force or the trampling of individual rights. Conservative fascists hiding themselves as Ron Paul Libertarians would be like Neo-Nazi skinheads hiding amongst members of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League.
With that said, I have seen people who blindly oppose whatever the `other team` is doing or blindly supporting what `their team` is doing without respect to principles -- but I've mostly seen that in the real world in partisan venues. (Fox, MSNBC, etc.) I don't see it here on Slashdot, as much.
I admit I do not authoritatively know how Amazon's affiliate program works. I read TFA and have listened to some pod casts that want listeners to make Amazon purchases through their link. I'm not sure how accurate it is to describe or catagorize Amazon affiliates as a sales force.
I have trouble seeing how the commission an affiliate receives is that significantly different than paying for an outright ad. For example, if a mail-order company took out an ad in The New York Times but listed an order-taking phone number that was specific & unique to that TNYT ad, and the mail-order company made a deal with TNYT to pay them a little extra every time an order is placed using that phone number... I am now to believe that creates a "substantial nexus" of the mail-order company in New York state?
What it would come down to, for me, is how Amazon pays their affiliates. If Amazon was paying them as employees, then that would justify claiming they are Amazon's sales force. (I think it is a fair assumption that Amazon is not doing that.) If Amazon is paying them proportionately on the click-through purchases, then I don't see how it can be treated anything other than an ad contract.
If that is the case, then there is nothing to stop New York state from expanding their law to demand any out-of-state advertiser in a New York publication, TV, radio station or website start collecting sales tax for anything sold to a New York resident.
Spoken like someone who doesn't have to bear that burden him or herself...
I think the story mixes FISA warrants and Patriot Act National Security Letters (NSLs). I don't know about FISA warrants, but I've read that recipients of NSLs are forbidden from saying anything to anyone about having received them. I would not be surprised to learn the Federal government claims the same authority for FISA warrants.
Recipients of these NSLs and FISA warrants are not complaining because they cannot tell the subject of the investigation. They are complaining about the gag order -- even to the extent that they cannot publish statistics on how many government requests they've received.
I completely agree with your belief that the Catholic Church would find it morally unacceptable to artificially conceive a child and place it in an artificial womb. However, I think they would find it morally acceptable to transplant a child from the womb to an artificial one if the mother could not, for medical reasons, carry the child to term or if there was a problem with the child that made it easier to treat the child if he/she was in an artificial womb.
But, like you wrote, transplanting an already-implanted embryo is beyond our current capabilities. Who knows what we will be capable of in the future.
It is my understanding (sorry, I don't have the time to find a reference right now) that once a person enters the security-checking area one cannot leave without being checked. This is supposedly to stop terrorist test runs. "Oh, they're using that scanning machine today; that will catch me. I better come back and try again tomorrow."
Perhaps you are thinking of The Dead Past by Isaac Asimov. That story features a researcher-for-hire's attempt to build a chronoscope in a society where all academic research is highly regulated and research into time-viewing is very restricted. It has a thought-provoking ending.
I've noticed there was one Republican candidate who didn't do that...
I truly find your comment interesting. Please do not think my comment is some moral critique; I really am just curious about why you feel that way and how it lines up (or doesn't) with my thoughts on the topic.
Why wouldn't you watch the porn film with your mother, wife or daughter acting in it? Is it just because you wouldn't be as stimulated by seeing (for example) your mother as you would a stranger? (I.e. the `ick` factor?) This is a serious question: what if your mother was a really good actress? I.e. if she wore a wig and make-up that didn't make it obvious she was your mother -- or maybe the pornography just didn't show her face that much -- would you feel more comfortable watching her perform?
Although I do not support legislation to outlaw pornography, the knowledge that the women in it are somebody's mother, daughter, sister or, sometimes even, wife causes me to pause and think: "is it moral for me to treat this woman differently than I'd want my mother, daughter, sister or wife treated? If so, why?" Why would I be willing to patronize those women I know & love in any other line of work but not this one?
I've come to realize it isn't just the `ick` factor; I believe there is something de-humanizing about acting in pornography. I think the viewer does not appreciate the actress for the whole human she is, but instead reduces her to a status or respect level something below what one would want for the other women in his life.
Just curious what your thoughts are.
Great. I'm glad they're patching security vulnerabilities in their 32-bit product. But why do 64-bit users have to use a vulnerable version from 7 months ago?
First off, the fuel pellets in these boiling water reactors are made of uranium dioxide -- a ceramic which has a melting point of 2,865 degrees Celsius and the zircaloy cladding melts somewhere in the range of 1,850 to 1,975 degrees Celsius (depends on which alloy they are using). I could not even find a combustion temperature for either material. That doesn't matter, though, because the temperature of the spent fuel in the pool would be somewhere around 200 degrees Celsius, depending on how long it had been taken out of the reactor.
So it is unreasonable to speculate that the fuel rods have `caught fire`.
Secondly, Tokyo Electric Power Co. said that an oil leak in a cooling water pump at Unit 4 was the cause of the fire the media keeps talking about.
I would strongly suggest anybody interested in following this event watch that web page and/or this one for accurate, knowledgeable, non-scaremongering reporting. I've heard too many news reports totally screw the facts up. (Like when they reported there was a 3rd explosion when really it was the 2nd explosion that happened in the #3 reactor building.)
Although I understand and mostly agree with the point you are making, I think it is worth noting that Microsoft operating systems do share a large chunk of the blame.
Microsoft operating systems have never been easy for a home user to use when logged in as a non-Administrator. (I single out home users since I believe they are the majority of drive-by-download victims.) They all have their little `gotchas` when trying to temporarily elevating one's normal user privileges to that of administrator to accomplish a task.
Have you ever tried to setup a person as a non-Administrator on Windows XP Home? Microsoft purposely hobbled that OS to make it impossible to work with the system like an administrator should be able to. At least it is getting better, from what I've heard about Windows Vista Home and 7 Home. (So I've heard. I stopped supporting Home versions of Microsoft operating systems after the headaches caused by XP Home.)
So I feel like one certainly can blame the OS for encouraging users to run as administrators when those OSes make it overly difficult or impossible to temporarily increase privileges to accomplish needed tasks.
It sounds like Suddenlink has somewhat of a monopoly in your area. If that is the case, they are probably regulated by your local government. Although I am not optimistic this will have much effect, you should complain to the franchise authority / regulatory commission that oversees Suddenlink.
If enough people did, Suddenlink would have no choice but to deep-six this program.
The study of protecting individuals and the public from the potentially harmful effects of radiation is known as Health Physics. Every industry that uses radiation sources -- hospitals, nuclear power plants, materials engineering facilities, etc. -- employs health physicists.
I would recommend looking at the Health Physics Society web page and possibly contacting them. They are a professional organization made up of people in the field -- people whose jobs are to detect & measure radiation; inspect facilities; and write, understand & enforce various regulations.
Operators do pay into a disposal fund. Unfortunately politicians have been dipping into that fund for non-disposal purposes.
TFA is not a news article, it is a guest editorial by a friend ("amicus") of the defendants. So, it is very slanted as to why minimum resale price agreements should continue to be in violation of antitrust laws. Knowing there is always two sides to a story, I sought out that other side and found this from the Ayn Rand Institute:
Legalize "Price-Fixing"
Please note that by posting this, I am not saying I support the Ayn Rand Institute's side; I mearly think it is important to hear both sides of the debate. In this case, I think the Institute does a poor job of convincing the public that their position in in our best interest.
I would guess your proposed situation is not a significant problem for Red Hat. Purchasers of Red Hat Enterprise Linux are large corporations that want the backing of their vendors. The way it works is that when one `purchases` Red Hat Enterprise Linux, the license one agrees to is for their support & updates. The money one pays Red Hat is for that technical support and `subscription` to the Red Hat Network in order to download & install updates. So, those large corporations are not going to let their subscription lapse because they want the support & updates. I would guess it would be extremely rare for any of Red Hat's enterprise customers to let their subscription lapse and run non-updated & non-supported RHEL products.