How about a congress without limits? Where they can pass anything they want? You want less hostility? You want to reduce the chances of the US becoming a police state? Then insist on limited government. We have a framework for that - it's called the constitution.
How is this comment "Off-topic"? Common moderator. I was answering Point 1 "1997 the government decided that people should not pay capital gain taxes on houses but should pay capital gain taxes on everything else"
Hmmm. Don't think so. The survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not fatter than their contemporaries. In fact if they survived the first few years they lived as long as everyone else. This holds true for the 100+ people who had the misfortune (or great luck) to survive BOTH Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
You're correct I wasn't clear.
The first, and most important thing, was that the cashier looked at the signature (on the card) while examining the customer signature. This had to be done each and every time with one exception - if it was a repeat customer. The organization was a moderately high-end fashion company (below Prada but above Macy's).
Rarely did the clerk ASK for ID as that was off-putting to our clientelle. The data, that I saw, indicated that outright fraud (as opposed to serial returning or "borrowing") took place on charges above $1000.00. Therefore on 1000.00 charges the cashier had to write down the ID on a piece of paper. (Hence my job to remove paper.)
This isn't true. I worked for a retailer that had an physical presence and part of the workflow included looking at the signature.. The cameras looked down at the cashier and one of the first things that a manager would do if there was a charge reversal was to see if the cashier had looked at the ID.
Our processing check list required that manager select whether or not the the cashier had reviewed the signature.
It's the inane hyperbole of science reporters that make the situation worse. Reporting and sensationalizing science news without taking things into context creates this yo-you effect. (As with most/.ers I did not RTFA so I'm assuming basic competence in the original study.)
This is why we need to stay informed and keep stressing the value of privacy and the 4th A (for those in the USA) when hiring elected officials. (ie voting)
No. Hospitals do not use SSN as a primary number. It doesn't work. There are too many visitors, illegals, john does for that to work.
There are some patients such homeless John Does who suck up 100,000s of dollars every year on emergency visits and chronic care.
No. But it certainly makes you wonder what sort of analysis is currently being run by our government. As processing speeds increase (a thousand fold in the next 10-15 years) such analysis could be run by many organizations.
The analogy would be if Bush literally suspended the constitution and unilaterally tried to install a new one without going through constitutional procedures.
UIDs are part of the problem.Names (obviously) are not usable; neither are SS# as not everyone has a SS# and Medical Record Numbers do not go cross hospitals. Each hospital has it's own MRN which creates problems when hospitals merge with one another and a new set of unique medical records must be created.
Photovoltaic "paint" is being perfected. We have large sections of the world where cars could be powered by solar energy with panels on the side of the road as well as the road itself absorbing solar energy and then distributing the energy to the vehicles.
However, as technology advanced that could change. If you can produce food economically without endangering animals, then raising animals simply to use them for food becomes unjustifiable. Other uses for animals might still be justified (like animal testing), but anytime a technology reduces the need for animal-based testing that is a good thing in my mind. Life has some value - even primitive life. That doesn't mean that i'm going to cry everytime I step on an ant, but on the other hand I'm not going to breed ants just so that I can step on them.
I'm not a connoisseur of bear meat, but in talking with those who are (or say they are) bear meat is better if their diet was berries than if their diet was salmon. Technically, I suppose, bears are omnivores and not carnivores.
I'm an atheist so I'm not shilling for creationists of any stripe. There are levels of ignorance and faith and equating a young earther with a deist or someone who believes that God stepped in creating life and man doesn't help things as well as makes for an inaccurate evaluation of the situation.
Well, I understand your point but there are levels of ignoring evidence. Science does not disprove the existence of God but I think </sarc> that science has proved that the earth is just a wee bit older than 10,000 years.
You do realize that, until very recently, all these creationists were split rather equally between both dems and reps. (The gay marriage and abortion issue pushed white evangelists into the Reps side.) The black population is over 50% creationist (and 90+ are dems) and almost 50% of those who classify themselves as liberal are creationists.
Another thing to think about is that all creationists are not the same. There are they young earthers as well as those who accept that the earth is billions of years old but who think that God created life (and accept minor evolutionary change).
Tea Party are not anti-tax per se. They are anti the government doing what they were not granted permission to do. There is a thing called the constitution and it gives the parameters of what the federal government may or may not do.
Didn't say that. I said that WE, as a society should pay for this if WE as a society consider it valuable. I don't think it makes sense, or just, to force the landowners to pay out-of-pocket for this.
As stated in the earlier post - the concept of an individual right comes as virtue of being a human. The concept rejects the idea that everything comes from and is allocated by the government. As a human being we have thoughts and ideas. The government does not create these thoughts but the government may attempt to prevent us from communicating them. A just government is created via a social contract and exists with consent of the governed hence we have "rights", we have attributes, that predate the government. Therefore these rights did not come from the government. In fact the govt exists to protect these rights.
Anyway, that in a nutshell is the concept of individual rights - as I see it.
Slashdot Mirror
How about a congress without limits? Where they can pass anything they want? You want less hostility? You want to reduce the chances of the US becoming a police state? Then insist on limited government. We have a framework for that - it's called the constitution.
How is this comment "Off-topic"? Common moderator. I was answering Point 1 "1997 the government decided that people should not pay capital gain taxes on houses but should pay capital gain taxes on everything else"
Of course you pay capital gains on houses. Why do you think 1031 exchanges exist? Please.
Hmmm. Don't think so. The survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not fatter than their contemporaries. In fact if they survived the first few years they lived as long as everyone else. This holds true for the 100+ people who had the misfortune (or great luck) to survive BOTH Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
You're correct I wasn't clear. The first, and most important thing, was that the cashier looked at the signature (on the card) while examining the customer signature. This had to be done each and every time with one exception - if it was a repeat customer. The organization was a moderately high-end fashion company (below Prada but above Macy's). Rarely did the clerk ASK for ID as that was off-putting to our clientelle. The data, that I saw, indicated that outright fraud (as opposed to serial returning or "borrowing") took place on charges above $1000.00. Therefore on 1000.00 charges the cashier had to write down the ID on a piece of paper. (Hence my job to remove paper.)
This isn't true. I worked for a retailer that had an physical presence and part of the workflow included looking at the signature.. The cameras looked down at the cashier and one of the first things that a manager would do if there was a charge reversal was to see if the cashier had looked at the ID. Our processing check list required that manager select whether or not the the cashier had reviewed the signature.
It's the inane hyperbole of science reporters that make the situation worse. Reporting and sensationalizing science news without taking things into context creates this yo-you effect. (As with most /.ers I did not RTFA so I'm assuming basic competence in the original study.)
This is why we need to stay informed and keep stressing the value of privacy and the 4th A (for those in the USA) when hiring elected officials. (ie voting)
No. Hospitals do not use SSN as a primary number. It doesn't work. There are too many visitors, illegals, john does for that to work. There are some patients such homeless John Does who suck up 100,000s of dollars every year on emergency visits and chronic care.
OK. Missed that first step. That does change things.
No. But it certainly makes you wonder what sort of analysis is currently being run by our government. As processing speeds increase (a thousand fold in the next 10-15 years) such analysis could be run by many organizations.
The analogy would be if Bush literally suspended the constitution and unilaterally tried to install a new one without going through constitutional procedures.
UIDs are part of the problem.Names (obviously) are not usable; neither are SS# as not everyone has a SS# and Medical Record Numbers do not go cross hospitals. Each hospital has it's own MRN which creates problems when hospitals merge with one another and a new set of unique medical records must be created.
Photovoltaic "paint" is being perfected. We have large sections of the world where cars could be powered by solar energy with panels on the side of the road as well as the road itself absorbing solar energy and then distributing the energy to the vehicles.
However, as technology advanced that could change. If you can produce food economically without endangering animals, then raising animals simply to use them for food becomes unjustifiable. Other uses for animals might still be justified (like animal testing), but anytime a technology reduces the need for animal-based testing that is a good thing in my mind. Life has some value - even primitive life. That doesn't mean that i'm going to cry everytime I step on an ant, but on the other hand I'm not going to breed ants just so that I can step on them.
Wish had some mod points for that.
I'm not a connoisseur of bear meat, but in talking with those who are (or say they are) bear meat is better if their diet was berries than if their diet was salmon. Technically, I suppose, bears are omnivores and not carnivores.
Carnivore flesh is not that tasty. Notice we really don't eat carnivores.
I'm an atheist so I'm not shilling for creationists of any stripe. There are levels of ignorance and faith and equating a young earther with a deist or someone who believes that God stepped in creating life and man doesn't help things as well as makes for an inaccurate evaluation of the situation.
Well, I understand your point but there are levels of ignoring evidence. Science does not disprove the existence of God but I think < /sarc> that science has proved that the earth is just a wee bit older than 10,000 years.
You do realize that, until very recently, all these creationists were split rather equally between both dems and reps. (The gay marriage and abortion issue pushed white evangelists into the Reps side.) The black population is over 50% creationist (and 90+ are dems) and almost 50% of those who classify themselves as liberal are creationists.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/05/who-are-the-creationists-by-the-numbers/#.UdBCoDu1H4s
Another thing to think about is that all creationists are not the same. There are they young earthers as well as those who accept that the earth is billions of years old but who think that God created life (and accept minor evolutionary change).
Tea Party are not anti-tax per se. They are anti the government doing what they were not granted permission to do. There is a thing called the constitution and it gives the parameters of what the federal government may or may not do.
amen
You know what's amazing? DUMBO real estate prices match or exceed SOHO and midtown? Who would have ever thought that?
Didn't say that. I said that WE, as a society should pay for this if WE as a society consider it valuable. I don't think it makes sense, or just, to force the landowners to pay out-of-pocket for this.
As stated in the earlier post - the concept of an individual right comes as virtue of being a human. The concept rejects the idea that everything comes from and is allocated by the government. As a human being we have thoughts and ideas. The government does not create these thoughts but the government may attempt to prevent us from communicating them. A just government is created via a social contract and exists with consent of the governed hence we have "rights", we have attributes, that predate the government. Therefore these rights did not come from the government. In fact the govt exists to protect these rights.
Anyway, that in a nutshell is the concept of individual rights - as I see it.