You sound like you're very familiar with Swedish law - wish I had some mod points to give you.
Question for you: under US law, the statute of limitations doesn't run if you stay out of the jurisdiction for the clear purpose of running out the clock. Same for the right to a speedy trial if you're already indicted. So, you can't just hide to run out the clock. It sounds like Swedish law is different...
2) No Throttling - An ISP can't say "you have broadband Internet" and then tell you "you've used too much so now you're stuck at dial-up speeds." If they want to have caps - e.g. only 500GB of data per month - they need to clearly specify this limitation. ("the Order builds on the strong foundation established in 2010 and enhances the transparency rule for both end users and edge providers, including by adopting a requirement that broadband providers always must disclose promotional rates, all fees and/or surcharges, and all data caps or data allowances")
Actually, an ISP _can_ offer a "500GB, but then we slow you down to 65kbps package." The no throttling provision is designed to deal with something different. Provision 1 says no blocking (i.e. Comcast can't block access to Netflix). Provision 2 says no throttling, to keep the ISP from saying "we're not blocking access to Netflix, it's right there - at no more than 20kbps." You can do network management/prioritization (i.e. if there's congestion, prioritize Facetime chats over backups, for example), but you have to be evenhanded about it - can't throttle Netflix, but not Hulu, for example.
Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. So, what's obscene? As Justice Stewart said, "I know it when I see it." Most current Supreme Court caselaw is Miller v. California, which has a three-prong test for ruling something obscene:
1. Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, 2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[3] specifically defined by applicable state law, 3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[4]
A prosecutor has to check all three boxes to win an obscenity case. They're very tough to win, and very rarely filed. It's an open question as to how Internet content should be handled (Third Circuit disagrees with Ninth Circuit).
She is, in fact, from the right wing of the party and could have been an establishment Republican a generation ago.
The first part of that sentence is true and tells you how far left the Democratic Party has moved. The second part is nonsense. A generation ago, Hillary was on the left fringe of the Democratic Party. She has not moved right, the Party has moved left.
Are you seriously arguing that the political center hasn't moved right over the past 20 years? Seriously? In 1989, the Heritage Foundation, which pretty much represents (then and now) mainstream Republican thought, proposed a plan for health care reform that included a mandatory coverage and gov't subsidies for those unable to afford coverage. Those two principles, now embedded in Obamacare, have both been the focus of lawsuits (supported by the Republican mainstream) against Obamacare (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and Burwell v. King).
Richard Nixon proposed and drove the creation of the EPA. He expanded Medicare coverage to include long-term disabled under 65. He created the Federal disability insurance (SSDI). He proposed a national health care plan, with federal subsidies (something more "socialized" than Obamacare).
Advocating any of these things today would make it impossible for any Republican to get the Presidential nomination.
Not very well I must admit. But it only fair to point out that the Supreme Court Justices who voted to grant citizenship rights to corporations (whose interest are, more often than not, quite apart from those of real citizens) were appointed by Republican presidents.
True, if you're including Grant, Hayes, Arthur, etc. as Republicans (which they were, although the Republican party of the 1880s is a bit different than that of today). Also, you'd need to include Democratic-Republican Presidents like Madison and Monroe on that list.
Corporate personhood is NOT a new phenomenon - it's been a well-established principle since (for varying purposes) the 1880s or the 1810s.
So can public schools. Not politically content-based (i.e. can't allow people to wear "Republicans Suck" t-shirts while prohibiting "Democrats Suck" t-shirts), but public schools can certainly place greater restrictions on speech than would be allowed for the public at large. The federal government can't ban Playboy, but a public school can certainly prohibit students from bringing it to class.
It would be a huge leap, LTE Advanced (i.e. 4G) could, in theory, get to around 15 bits/Hz (currently LTE's around 4), but this is more like 10,000 bits/Hz.
Google's usual spin to try to sound equitable and egalitarian. They're anything but. Remember the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill? Remember when Google took payments from BP to redirect search queries to results that pointed to pro BP (PR agency) websites and religated real journalism and articles about public concern to the back pages of search results that rarely, if ever get seen? Isn't that efectively censorship that's against the public interest?
You mean when BP bought ads on Google based on Deepwater Horizon-related search terms? The same ads that anybody could have purchased, and that were clearly marked as ads? Nobody was being "redirected," unless you think that the law firms that buy ads on "mesothelioma" looking for clients for asbestos lawsuits are somehow "redirecting" searchers from the mesothelioma web page?
If you say "we're doing it because of copyright," then you get everyone saying "hey, my material doesn't violate copyright," and Google's in a place it DEFINITELY doesn't want to be, which is proactively checking content for violations.
Agreed on the linens thing - I like Starwood's approach on that - if you don't want your room made up, they give you a discount or some extra points.
If you say "we're doing it because of copyright," then you get everyone saying "hey, my material doesn't violate copyright," and Google's in a place it DEFINITELY doesn't want to be, which is proactively checking content for violations.
I wonder if this isn't motivated at least in substantial part by copyright concerns. A huge portion of adult content posted is in violation of copyright, and if Google was seeing that they were getting DMCA notices for adult content on Blogger at rates that far exceed the overall average, and the cost/effort of responding to those notices was outstripping the ad revenue from the adult blogs, then maybe they just decided it's not worth it.
Purely speculation on my part, but it wouldn't surprise me.
I'm aware of the one Gruber comment. Counterbalancing that is the weight of comments by all the key drafters and authors that this is not what they intended. It's poorly written, no doubt, but it's an incredible stretch to argue that the authors and backers of the law clearly intended to hide away a time bomb within it. Absent clear evidence that they did, the IRS's interpretation of the law looks entirely reasonable and in line with Congressional intent.
Definitely easier to launch an insurer now, given that you had multiple new entrants to the insurance marketplace when Obamacare was launched (often associated with local health care providers/hospital groups).
"The executive branch needs to learn they implement the law congress passes not the one they wish congress passes"
Except they ARE implementing the law congress passed. Nobody without a prior axe to grind, looking at the law as written, in the context of how and when it was passed, could reach the conclusion that the passage was designed to do what the plaintiffs claim it was. In cases of ambiguity in a specific phrase, the courts are obliged to look at the legislation as a whole and at the context in which it was passed in order to resolve the ambiguity.
Since these insurance companies wouldn't insure millions of people at a reasonable price until the government forced the issue
Also, the government introduced the insurance mandate, thereby sharply reducing the adverse selection problem associated with the individual insurance market.
"The feedback from users was that it wasn’t useful, and that’s why we turned it off."
There's a tiny difference between "nah, this isn't helpful" and "this creates massive security holes and radically impairs my ability to safely use the computer."
Barclays Arrival Plus card. There is a $89 annual fee. The 2.2% is a bit convoluted. You get 2 points per $ spent, and you can then use the points to pay off any travel-related charges on the card at $0.01/point. You then get 10% of those points back.
So, example: Spend $1000 on the card, get 2000 points. Use 2000 points as a credit against a $20 travel-related charge. Get 200 points back. Net, 1800 points spent, $20 back on (effectively) $900 in spend, so 2.2%.
Only makes sense vs. no-fee 2% back cards like the Fidelity Amex if you're going to spend more than $45k/year on it.
Slashdot Mirror
You sound like you're very familiar with Swedish law - wish I had some mod points to give you.
Question for you: under US law, the statute of limitations doesn't run if you stay out of the jurisdiction for the clear purpose of running out the clock. Same for the right to a speedy trial if you're already indicted. So, you can't just hide to run out the clock. It sounds like Swedish law is different...
The price point is already great, when you consider the operating cost.
Because viewing that content is illegal where you're located.
2) No Throttling - An ISP can't say "you have broadband Internet" and then tell you "you've used too much so now you're stuck at dial-up speeds." If they want to have caps - e.g. only 500GB of data per month - they need to clearly specify this limitation. ("the Order builds on the strong foundation established in 2010 and enhances the transparency rule for both end users and edge providers, including by adopting a requirement that broadband providers always must disclose
promotional rates, all fees and/or surcharges, and all data caps or data allowances")
Actually, an ISP _can_ offer a "500GB, but then we slow you down to 65kbps package." The no throttling provision is designed to deal with something different. Provision 1 says no blocking (i.e. Comcast can't block access to Netflix). Provision 2 says no throttling, to keep the ISP from saying "we're not blocking access to Netflix, it's right there - at no more than 20kbps." You can do network management/prioritization (i.e. if there's congestion, prioritize Facetime chats over backups, for example), but you have to be evenhanded about it - can't throttle Netflix, but not Hulu, for example.
Company's name is Deutsche Telekom.
Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. So, what's obscene? As Justice Stewart said, "I know it when I see it." Most current Supreme Court caselaw is Miller v. California, which has a three-prong test for ruling something obscene:
1. Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[3] specifically defined by applicable state law,
3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[4]
A prosecutor has to check all three boxes to win an obscenity case. They're very tough to win, and very rarely filed. It's an open question as to how Internet content should be handled (Third Circuit disagrees with Ninth Circuit).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
She is, in fact, from the right wing of the party and could have been an establishment Republican a generation ago.
The first part of that sentence is true and tells you how far left the Democratic Party has moved. The second part is nonsense. A generation ago, Hillary was on the left fringe of the Democratic Party. She has not moved right, the Party has moved left.
Are you seriously arguing that the political center hasn't moved right over the past 20 years? Seriously?
In 1989, the Heritage Foundation, which pretty much represents (then and now) mainstream Republican thought, proposed a plan for health care reform that included a mandatory coverage and gov't subsidies for those unable to afford coverage. Those two principles, now embedded in Obamacare, have both been the focus of lawsuits (supported by the Republican mainstream) against Obamacare (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and Burwell v. King).
Richard Nixon proposed and drove the creation of the EPA.
He expanded Medicare coverage to include long-term disabled under 65.
He created the Federal disability insurance (SSDI).
He proposed a national health care plan, with federal subsidies (something more "socialized" than Obamacare).
Advocating any of these things today would make it impossible for any Republican to get the Presidential nomination.
Not very well I must admit. But it only fair to point out that the Supreme Court Justices who voted to grant citizenship rights to corporations (whose interest are, more often than not, quite apart from those of real citizens) were appointed by Republican presidents.
True, if you're including Grant, Hayes, Arthur, etc. as Republicans (which they were, although the Republican party of the 1880s is a bit different than that of today). Also, you'd need to include Democratic-Republican Presidents like Madison and Monroe on that list.
Corporate personhood is NOT a new phenomenon - it's been a well-established principle since (for varying purposes) the 1880s or the 1810s.
I think you mean "there should have been, only one."
Uh, maybe PRIVATE schools can have content-based speech restrictions...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
So can public schools. Not politically content-based (i.e. can't allow people to wear "Republicans Suck" t-shirts while prohibiting "Democrats Suck" t-shirts), but public schools can certainly place greater restrictions on speech than would be allowed for the public at large. The federal government can't ban Playboy, but a public school can certainly prohibit students from bringing it to class.
Um, why? The vast majority of cellsites deployed today cover areas with a radius of MUCH less than 15km...
It would be a huge leap, LTE Advanced (i.e. 4G) could, in theory, get to around 15 bits/Hz (currently LTE's around 4), but this is more like 10,000 bits/Hz.
Google's usual spin to try to sound equitable and egalitarian. They're anything but. Remember the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill? Remember when Google took payments from BP to redirect search queries to results that pointed to pro BP (PR agency) websites and religated real journalism and articles about public concern to the back pages of search results that rarely, if ever get seen? Isn't that efectively censorship that's against the public interest?
You mean when BP bought ads on Google based on Deepwater Horizon-related search terms? The same ads that anybody could have purchased, and that were clearly marked as ads? Nobody was being "redirected," unless you think that the law firms that buy ads on "mesothelioma" looking for clients for asbestos lawsuits are somehow "redirecting" searchers from the mesothelioma web page?
If you say "we're doing it because of copyright," then you get everyone saying "hey, my material doesn't violate copyright," and Google's in a place it DEFINITELY doesn't want to be, which is proactively checking content for violations.
Agreed on the linens thing - I like Starwood's approach on that - if you don't want your room made up, they give you a discount or some extra points.
If you say "we're doing it because of copyright," then you get everyone saying "hey, my material doesn't violate copyright," and Google's in a place it DEFINITELY doesn't want to be, which is proactively checking content for violations.
I wonder if this isn't motivated at least in substantial part by copyright concerns. A huge portion of adult content posted is in violation of copyright, and if Google was seeing that they were getting DMCA notices for adult content on Blogger at rates that far exceed the overall average, and the cost/effort of responding to those notices was outstripping the ad revenue from the adult blogs, then maybe they just decided it's not worth it.
Purely speculation on my part, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Yup, there's that too. Still, however, if you get your health insurance without any subsidy, the IRS only need to know that you have it.
I'm aware of the one Gruber comment. Counterbalancing that is the weight of comments by all the key drafters and authors that this is not what they intended. It's poorly written, no doubt, but it's an incredible stretch to argue that the authors and backers of the law clearly intended to hide away a time bomb within it. Absent clear evidence that they did, the IRS's interpretation of the law looks entirely reasonable and in line with Congressional intent.
Definitely easier to launch an insurer now, given that you had multiple new entrants to the insurance marketplace when Obamacare was launched (often associated with local health care providers/hospital groups).
"The executive branch needs to learn they implement the law congress passes not the one they wish congress passes"
Except they ARE implementing the law congress passed. Nobody without a prior axe to grind, looking at the law as written, in the context of how and when it was passed, could reach the conclusion that the passage was designed to do what the plaintiffs claim it was. In cases of ambiguity in a specific phrase, the courts are obliged to look at the legislation as a whole and at the context in which it was passed in order to resolve the ambiguity.
It doesn't, but if you're going to get federal tax credits that subsidize your insurance, and those credits are income-based, then it does.
You could sign up at healthcare.gov without involving the IRS at all, but you'd have to forego the opportunity to get any subsidy.
Since these insurance companies wouldn't insure millions of people at a reasonable price until the government forced the issue
Also, the government introduced the insurance mandate, thereby sharply reducing the adverse selection problem associated with the individual insurance market.
"The feedback from users was that it wasn’t useful, and that’s why we turned it off."
There's a tiny difference between "nah, this isn't helpful" and "this creates massive security holes and radically impairs my ability to safely use the computer."
Barclays Arrival Plus card. There is a $89 annual fee.
The 2.2% is a bit convoluted. You get 2 points per $ spent, and you can then use the points to pay off any travel-related charges on the card at $0.01/point. You then get 10% of those points back.
So, example: Spend $1000 on the card, get 2000 points. Use 2000 points as a credit against a $20 travel-related charge. Get 200 points back. Net, 1800 points spent, $20 back on (effectively) $900 in spend, so 2.2%.
Only makes sense vs. no-fee 2% back cards like the Fidelity Amex if you're going to spend more than $45k/year on it.