One can read and still decide that the reasoning used is unsound. that clickbait fabrications sometimes call themselves satire for CYA purposes doesn't mean that it's logical to include The Onion.
The GOP is significantly worse, but the main reason the Dems lose is because they have provide nothing other than being "Republican-lite." That's why, as pointed out, even in states where the GOP doesn't have control, they still aren't doing all that well.
The president doesn't have a hard power to prevent the enforcement of the law. But he's got plenty of soft influence, and all law enforcement agencies have enough work to prioritize. As long as those in other powerful positions are cooperative, they can basically set the priority of a particular law or scenario low enough that it's never enforced. Other than a few things explicitly mentioned in the constitution, the government doesn't really HAVE to do very much. So, in practice, an executive branch in agreement can NOT do just about anything.
Again, the separation of powers specifically exists to limit the power of the government to act.
I will at least applaud your consistency, but when it comes to enforcement, it's not a bug, it's a feature. Our system has many checks against tyranny, and separation of powers is one of the biggest. The executive branch can choose to not enforce laws, provided there isn't some kind of systematic selective enforcement of the law. However, the executive branch cannot enforce laws that Congress did not pass. Thus, the net result is that laws are only carried out when there is support from all three branches of government. If one branch does not support it, then that branch neuters the ability for the others to act.
The above is framed in constitutional terms, so it's what the government CAN do. By contrast, what the government SHOULD do is often drastically different. Without the law being unjust, it should be enforced fairly and consistently.
But, if you're scared of the US going down the road of tyranny then having an Executive Branch that is willfully not enforcing Constitutional laws passed by Congress then yes... that is one small step down the path of tyranny.
I would agree that enforcing an unconstitutional law would be tyranny, but not enforcing a constitutional law is not the same thing. Obama also did something similar in regards to federal marijuana enforcement in states with legal weed. That was "willfully not enforcing Constitutional laws pass by Congress," and yet, you'd be an idiot to call that a precursor to tyranny.
Obama was part of the federal government, and he exercised completely sane discretion in immigration enforcement (in that particular area). Sanctuary cities are just NOT helping the federal government, the same as states are not helping the DEA. This is government INACTION, which is the polar opposite of what tyranny entails.
For goddamn fucking sakes, Obama signed a law (NDAA) that overturned the MAGNA MOTHERFUCKING CARTA, and your stupid ass is whining about him not wasting money catering to fear of brown people. If our government was otherwise a paragon, you might have a decent point, but the goddamn house is on fire, and you're whining about the soup being cold.
If you want to argue that Obama was a tyrant, I will heartily agree, but you are picking the most bullshit point for no clear reason.
The hallmark of dictatorships is concentration of unchecked power. Sanctuary cities are undermining the power of the federal government, which makes the US less like a dictatorship. Likewise, Obama not enforcing immigration laws is prudent discretion in enforcement, which is again, a less powerful government, and thus further away from a dictatorship. Some degree of discretion in enforcement is necessary, otherwise the system would collapse, and I'm far more concerned that he didn't jail bankers who crashed the global economy than not shipping out enough brown people.
Now, you could have a dictatorship in regards to immigration law, but it would be the very opposite of what Obama did. If they were deporting without due process or a legal justification, that would indicate a dictatorship.
That's why I'm so confused. Our government has tons of authoritarian tendencies, but lax enforcement of immigration is about the weakest argument I can think of.
Ah yes, moderate levels of compassion for immigrants, a hallmark of dictatorships...
Why would you use such a stupid argument when there's so many better choices for examples? We've got the highest prison population in the world, extensive state surveillance, and the ability to throw away all rights if we shout the word terrorism loud and often enough.
Why would it need to change overnight? The reason for settling somewhere that is NOT Silicon Valley is because SV has a number of problems, and those problems may present hurdles to a startup.
I'm not talking about any particular compliance cost, as none of us would be likely to have a strong grasp on the particulars there. I'm pointing out that a law applying to all parties doesn't mean it can't convey a relative advantage to some.
I know it's shocking, but sometimes largely companies have the benefit of economies of scale, and those benefits may very well carry over to regulations compliance.
Yeah, and the degree to which that strategy is applied exists on a spectrum, not a strict dichotomy. Now, granted, the arguments proposed don't state that explicitly, but I'd chalk that up to considering it obvious that there are limits, at least to people that aren't delusional shitheads who think rural areas don't have paved roads.. For a more concrete example, there's the Research Triangle in North Carolina. It wouldn't be properly classified as rural, but it's a lot cheaper than Silicon Valley.
The core idea isn't that strange. California's dominance in the film industry came from applying a very similar strategy in escaping from New York and Edison's patents. Back then, it was, relatively speaking, nowhere.
That the same set of regulations apply to multiple parties doesn't mean that there is no relative advantage. For example, if the cost of compliance with a law is roughly a million dollars, regardless of the size of your business, Apple, Google, or Microsoft can afford it without blinking, while a startup could be crippled by that kind of rule.
Parent post is mostly delusional in blaming Obama, but your premise is deeply flawed, and ignores that our system has slid much deeper into oligopoly.
Telecoms and cable companies didn't invent anything you tied to innovation (although, to be fair Bell Labs did quite a bit back in the day) after their deregulation. All they really do halfway decently is build infrastructure, which isn't innovative, and isn't something private for-profit companies tend to be comparatively good at.
We've got no shortage of engineers and other STEM workers. What we've got a shortage of is workers with mathematically impossible levels of experience who will work for a fraction of an appropriate wage.
Software is in English the same way music is in Italian. The words used are mostly the respective vernacular languages, but they are a different kind of language, with some modest structural similarities at best.
You are putting far too much faith in the 'invisible hand' of the market.
However, the answer to how this actually should be handled is this:
The NSA and the like need to put 90% of their focus on fixing security breaches, and leave only 10% to the spying. That budget is more than enough to make a substantial dent in software security.
The subject of liability is an interesting one, but I think it would be important to ensure that the primary parties being influenced by this law are management for medium to large businesses.
Actually encourage staggered works schedules. Traffic congestion tends to be the result of rush hour, and by having some workers work earlier and later schedules, you disperse that traffic. Makes everything more efficient, and lets those awful "morning people" deal with each other.
I never disagreed with you on your technical claims of what can be done, only disputing your ridiculous claims, just like your latest that it's completely meaningless to the competent. Competent programmers tend to prefer the path of least resistance. It's completely possible to the subset of competent familiar with Objective-C and the iOS API, but having to compile from source is a pain in the ass.
I disagreed with on your abuse of terminology, which renders the term "walled garden" completely meaningless. 99% of the general population can't do it (something you don't disagree with me on), which means it's a walled garden. If I lost the argument, then name what you consider some actual walled gardens. If some other means of adding unapproved software is less trivial, it's not a valid argument. So, you can't name any console with homebrew without negating your own argument.
From the start, you framed your argument in your own bullshit definition of what you could call a walled garden. If you do that, the term walled garden is completely meaningless. Yes, you were consistent in your bullshit, but it was bullshit nonetheless. It's like saying "if you don't count red meat or fish, I'm a vegetarian." I don't know if there's anything that could be called a walled garden by your gaping exceptions, or ones of a relatively similar magnitude.
Slashdot Mirror
One can read and still decide that the reasoning used is unsound. that clickbait fabrications sometimes call themselves satire for CYA purposes doesn't mean that it's logical to include The Onion.
The GOP is significantly worse, but the main reason the Dems lose is because they have provide nothing other than being "Republican-lite." That's why, as pointed out, even in states where the GOP doesn't have control, they still aren't doing all that well.
The president doesn't have a hard power to prevent the enforcement of the law. But he's got plenty of soft influence, and all law enforcement agencies have enough work to prioritize. As long as those in other powerful positions are cooperative, they can basically set the priority of a particular law or scenario low enough that it's never enforced. Other than a few things explicitly mentioned in the constitution, the government doesn't really HAVE to do very much. So, in practice, an executive branch in agreement can NOT do just about anything.
Again, the separation of powers specifically exists to limit the power of the government to act.
I will at least applaud your consistency, but when it comes to enforcement, it's not a bug, it's a feature. Our system has many checks against tyranny, and separation of powers is one of the biggest. The executive branch can choose to not enforce laws, provided there isn't some kind of systematic selective enforcement of the law. However, the executive branch cannot enforce laws that Congress did not pass. Thus, the net result is that laws are only carried out when there is support from all three branches of government. If one branch does not support it, then that branch neuters the ability for the others to act.
The above is framed in constitutional terms, so it's what the government CAN do. By contrast, what the government SHOULD do is often drastically different. Without the law being unjust, it should be enforced fairly and consistently.
So, by your rules, Obama needs to enforce our marijuana laws to avoid tyranny?
I would agree that enforcing an unconstitutional law would be tyranny, but not enforcing a constitutional law is not the same thing. Obama also did something similar in regards to federal marijuana enforcement in states with legal weed. That was "willfully not enforcing Constitutional laws pass by Congress," and yet, you'd be an idiot to call that a precursor to tyranny.
Obama was part of the federal government, and he exercised completely sane discretion in immigration enforcement (in that particular area). Sanctuary cities are just NOT helping the federal government, the same as states are not helping the DEA. This is government INACTION, which is the polar opposite of what tyranny entails.
For goddamn fucking sakes, Obama signed a law (NDAA) that overturned the MAGNA MOTHERFUCKING CARTA, and your stupid ass is whining about him not wasting money catering to fear of brown people. If our government was otherwise a paragon, you might have a decent point, but the goddamn house is on fire, and you're whining about the soup being cold.
If you want to argue that Obama was a tyrant, I will heartily agree, but you are picking the most bullshit point for no clear reason.
The hallmark of dictatorships is concentration of unchecked power. Sanctuary cities are undermining the power of the federal government, which makes the US less like a dictatorship. Likewise, Obama not enforcing immigration laws is prudent discretion in enforcement, which is again, a less powerful government, and thus further away from a dictatorship. Some degree of discretion in enforcement is necessary, otherwise the system would collapse, and I'm far more concerned that he didn't jail bankers who crashed the global economy than not shipping out enough brown people.
Now, you could have a dictatorship in regards to immigration law, but it would be the very opposite of what Obama did. If they were deporting without due process or a legal justification, that would indicate a dictatorship.
That's why I'm so confused. Our government has tons of authoritarian tendencies, but lax enforcement of immigration is about the weakest argument I can think of.
Ah yes, moderate levels of compassion for immigrants, a hallmark of dictatorships...
Why would you use such a stupid argument when there's so many better choices for examples? We've got the highest prison population in the world, extensive state surveillance, and the ability to throw away all rights if we shout the word terrorism loud and often enough.
Why would it need to change overnight? The reason for settling somewhere that is NOT Silicon Valley is because SV has a number of problems, and those problems may present hurdles to a startup.
I'm not talking about any particular compliance cost, as none of us would be likely to have a strong grasp on the particulars there. I'm pointing out that a law applying to all parties doesn't mean it can't convey a relative advantage to some.
I know it's shocking, but sometimes largely companies have the benefit of economies of scale, and those benefits may very well carry over to regulations compliance.
Yeah, and the degree to which that strategy is applied exists on a spectrum, not a strict dichotomy. Now, granted, the arguments proposed don't state that explicitly, but I'd chalk that up to considering it obvious that there are limits, at least to people that aren't delusional shitheads who think rural areas don't have paved roads.. For a more concrete example, there's the Research Triangle in North Carolina. It wouldn't be properly classified as rural, but it's a lot cheaper than Silicon Valley.
The core idea isn't that strange. California's dominance in the film industry came from applying a very similar strategy in escaping from New York and Edison's patents. Back then, it was, relatively speaking, nowhere.
You are creating a false dichotomy between "the cheapest place" and "not one of the most expensive places to live in the country."
That the same set of regulations apply to multiple parties doesn't mean that there is no relative advantage. For example, if the cost of compliance with a law is roughly a million dollars, regardless of the size of your business, Apple, Google, or Microsoft can afford it without blinking, while a startup could be crippled by that kind of rule.
Parent post is mostly delusional in blaming Obama, but your premise is deeply flawed, and ignores that our system has slid much deeper into oligopoly.
Telecoms and cable companies didn't invent anything you tied to innovation (although, to be fair Bell Labs did quite a bit back in the day) after their deregulation. All they really do halfway decently is build infrastructure, which isn't innovative, and isn't something private for-profit companies tend to be comparatively good at.
We've got no shortage of engineers and other STEM workers. What we've got a shortage of is workers with mathematically impossible levels of experience who will work for a fraction of an appropriate wage.
You now the rules. Not until Netcraft confirms it.
The verification is performed by software, the same as any other CA. Less frequent renewals would not result in more through vetting.
Software is in English the same way music is in Italian. The words used are mostly the respective vernacular languages, but they are a different kind of language, with some modest structural similarities at best.
You are putting far too much faith in the 'invisible hand' of the market.
However, the answer to how this actually should be handled is this:
The NSA and the like need to put 90% of their focus on fixing security breaches, and leave only 10% to the spying. That budget is more than enough to make a substantial dent in software security.
The subject of liability is an interesting one, but I think it would be important to ensure that the primary parties being influenced by this law are management for medium to large businesses.
It is well in line with the more traditional meaning of "hacking," the one rms will go on and on about.
Actually encourage staggered works schedules. Traffic congestion tends to be the result of rush hour, and by having some workers work earlier and later schedules, you disperse that traffic. Makes everything more efficient, and lets those awful "morning people" deal with each other.
Janus was the two-faced god One face is the problems, one face is the solutions.
I never disagreed with you on your technical claims of what can be done, only disputing your ridiculous claims, just like your latest that it's completely meaningless to the competent. Competent programmers tend to prefer the path of least resistance. It's completely possible to the subset of competent familiar with Objective-C and the iOS API, but having to compile from source is a pain in the ass.
I disagreed with on your abuse of terminology, which renders the term "walled garden" completely meaningless. 99% of the general population can't do it (something you don't disagree with me on), which means it's a walled garden. If I lost the argument, then name what you consider some actual walled gardens. If some other means of adding unapproved software is less trivial, it's not a valid argument. So, you can't name any console with homebrew without negating your own argument.
From the start, you framed your argument in your own bullshit definition of what you could call a walled garden. If you do that, the term walled garden is completely meaningless. Yes, you were consistent in your bullshit, but it was bullshit nonetheless. It's like saying "if you don't count red meat or fish, I'm a vegetarian." I don't know if there's anything that could be called a walled garden by your gaping exceptions, or ones of a relatively similar magnitude.