My great grandmother could hardly see or hear for years before she died. My grandmother has a cochlear implant and can hear better now than when she could 10 years ago. She says its the single most amazing thing she's experienced, and she experienced everything from the great depression to the Patriot Act.
The interesting question is, what is more important, being able hear and thus communicate with people around you, or being able to see?
Many raise the point about how easy it would be for RFID to be used to pay for parking or tolls and such. I prefer, however, to be able to see it when my money is being spent. It is much easier to keep track of where it goes when I have to count it out. If I am going to be charged, I want to make the conscious decision whether I'll pay or turn around and go elsewhere. I sure don't want to have to try and remember whether each line of fine print on a monthly statement is a correct representation of the roads I travelled or the places I parked.
Likewise, consider the effect on the public? How much easier would it be to raise prices? If you pay now, you can protest. If you get a statement at the end of the month, how many people will go to the trouble of arguing?
What this proposal actually does is play the now classic "purse string game." The Federal government lacks the authority to require local schools to collect & submit this data. Instead, they condition federal money on it.
If, of course, we were to simply keep those education dollars in-state in the first place, this wouldn't even come up. The solution is simple, stop letting D.C. have so much of your money.
I've driven this model of car, and I cannot recommend it. It's hard to get it up to 75mph against a headwind, uphill, with 4 passengers, in North Dakota. In fact, its hard to get it up to 45. When the nearest mexican resturant is 90 miles away and I'm hungry...
There are good and bad things that come from battery technology finally making some headway:
The Good: Efficient transportation, long lasting mobile electronic devices, and of course light sabers.
The Bad: People get totally freaked out when the engine on a hybrid car shuts down as the electric kicks in. That silence is just plain wrong, the engine should stay running. Oh, that and a lot of my clients are oil companies.
1. Can you honestly imagine the federal government not trying to micromanage even more if ALL money went through Washington D.C.? We already have to put up with a mountain of stupid laws because D.C. has the financial leverage... like the drinking age.
2. What if the people in my state prefer low taxes and few services? Will they be able to pay less in taxes? The same plan simply can't work for diverse states.
The difference between auto mechanics and computer repairmen is that the mechanics have a union which forces licensing on its members to boost the price of labor.
Where? (Mechanics do not generally have a special union here in the Dakotas. They tend to be independent contractors.)
Mandrake has gone downhill, in terms of quality, ever since version 9.0. Oddly this aligns in time with the whole France/Iraq/WMD problem.
Clearly the french company MandrakeSoft conspires against the Untied States for their actions in Iraq and is shipping them a crippled distro out of vengance.
Try to have your state lower the drinking age to 19, or opt out of Social Security, or pass a law against abortion or (insert idea here).
Actually, if you read South Dakota v. Dole, its pretty clear that your state is quite free to set the drinking age wherever it likes. (As long as it does not mind paying for its own roads.) Other cases such as Morrison & Lopez, (which held that Washington D.C. cannot make it a crime to carry a firearm in a school zone, or create a civil cause of action for abused women,) have in recent years done much to begin the revival of States' rights.
Actually from what I recall free speech issues on regulation of broadcast media are gotten around because the information is sent into everyones homes without any kind of subscription. It has nothing to do with being a channel of commerce. It's like regulating nudity on billboards, etc.
There has to be a threshold finding of interstate commerce though, before Congress can even consider infringing on your first amendment rights.
Washington D.C. can only regulate:
1. Interstate Commerce 2. Taxation and Spending (with limits) 3. Copyright & Patents 4. Civil Rights where a need is identified.
You miss my point. I am not arguing that "lawmakers" shouldn't be making these laws. I'm arguing that the Federal Government should not be making these laws.
Washington D.C. can only regulate:
1. Interstate Commerce 2. Taxation and Spending (with limits) 3. Copyright & Patents 4. Civil Rights where a need is identified.
"Cable is a much greater violator in the indecency area," the Alaska Republican told the National Association of Broadcasters, which represents most local television and radio affiliates. "I think we have the same power to deal with cable as over-the-air" broadcasters.
Now let us consider the following:
1. Violator of what, exactly, if there are not laws in place regulating cable right now?
2. You THINK you have the same power to regulate cable as "over-the-air"?
It makes sense that the federal government regulates airwaves as a "channel of commerce." This is fairly straightforward since the airwaves are generally considered publicly owned "space." Cable, however, runs over private property in a physically limited location. While there may be some power to regulate it, how can this be done without interfereing with private contract and first amendment rights?
3. [begin rant] Does it bother anyone else that federal officers will attempt to pass a law just because they "feel" they have the power, and "feel" something is needed? If there must be standards, why not let the bloody states set them and stop trying to distend the limits of federal authority beyond all recognizable bounds? [end rant]
Disclaimer: A wise post once said, the plural of anecdote is not data.
I've run Xandros 2.0 Deluxe at home for about a year now, it has crashed 4-5 times, and only when my cat gets behind the CPU. I don't know exactly what the connection is, but I suspect it is not software related.
Of course I don't agree, because sex is noneconomic activity, often considered a fundamental right, and subject to privacy rights... there is no fundamental right to buy goods on the internet...
Having said that... Your post is incredibly funny and does raise an interesting point of view. If I could, I'd mod it up.
For some reason I feel inclined to point out that, while your reasoning is correct, most of Europe (or the rest of the world, I'm told) does not have a corporate entity tax.
States need revenue to function and provide services, and they have every right to tax themselves however they see fit to generate this revenue. Where a sales tax is inappropriate, many states have enacted a "Use Tax." This is essentially a tool that taxes the use of products purchased outside the sales tax system, rather than the sale itself.
When we consider the alternative, it only makes sense that states pursue new ways to collect the taxes they need. The folks that smoke internet cigarettes are likely to generate health care costs born by the state, how does the state pay for this? Likewise with ordinary sales tax used to fund your roads, police, school, fire department, court, legislature.....
Personally, I am very impressed that a state took the initiative to meet new methods of conducting business with a new method for collecting taxes. Would we rather our states cling to some old, outmoded taxation model and try to impose burdensome limits on our rights to protect it (like some **AA?)
ProCD v. Zeidenberg considered a transaction between sophisticated parties, not the unwitting consumer to which I am referring. The software in question in that case was subject to a license to which, even the court notes, the puchaser was aware of the general terms.
The court in that case, rightly, did not examine it in terms of a consumer purchase, but rather a purchase for resale. A quick visit to Shepards will provide a litany of cases which have elaborated on distinctions such as these.
This seems like the perfect test case for the enforceability of a shrinkwrap EULA in the hands of an ordinary consumer. Previous cases have observed that, where portions of the game require additional "agreement" clicks, such licenses can be enforced, but I have not found any case yet which states that the individual purchasor is bound by a eula he is unable to read until after the sale.
There have been cases which indicate that software licenses in general are just fine, even if they limit rights granted under ordinary copyright law. What does not appear to have been examined is whether these license agreements fall into the realm of state contract law. If such were the case, then different states might have different consumer protection rules.
But then again, I am not your lawyer, and this is just an observation, not legal advice. If you like, feel free to contact me. You can find out how in my profile.
Fortunately, such a system would be constitutionally required to include a "Press here to schedule a court hearing" option. Actually, this would probably result in such court clog as to render the whole system unworkable. Maybe this is a good thing?
Slashdot Mirror
The same way we got the Dakotas. We walked up to the natives and said hey, lets have a treaty...
My great grandmother could hardly see or hear for years before she died. My grandmother has a cochlear implant and can hear better now than when she could 10 years ago. She says its the single most amazing thing she's experienced, and she experienced everything from the great depression to the Patriot Act.
The interesting question is, what is more important, being able hear and thus communicate with people around you, or being able to see?
Many raise the point about how easy it would be for RFID to be used to pay for parking or tolls and such. I prefer, however, to be able to see it when my money is being spent. It is much easier to keep track of where it goes when I have to count it out. If I am going to be charged, I want to make the conscious decision whether I'll pay or turn around and go elsewhere. I sure don't want to have to try and remember whether each line of fine print on a monthly statement is a correct representation of the roads I travelled or the places I parked.
Likewise, consider the effect on the public? How much easier would it be to raise prices? If you pay now, you can protest. If you get a statement at the end of the month, how many people will go to the trouble of arguing?
... is already available. You only need two components:
1. A punch card reader; and
2. Punch cards made out of that plastic that lasts for a length of time statistically indistinguishable from forever.
Presto! Permanent media.
What this proposal actually does is play the now classic "purse string game." The Federal government lacks the authority to require local schools to collect & submit this data. Instead, they condition federal money on it.
If, of course, we were to simply keep those education dollars in-state in the first place, this wouldn't even come up. The solution is simple, stop letting D.C. have so much of your money.
It's a Geo Metro with a 955cc engine.
I've driven this model of car, and I cannot recommend it. It's hard to get it up to 75mph against a headwind, uphill, with 4 passengers, in North Dakota. In fact, its hard to get it up to 45. When the nearest mexican resturant is 90 miles away and I'm hungry...
Imagine how much quieter cities are going to be at rush hour once a significant fraction of cars are hybrids.
Cities? I live in North Dakota you insensitive clod!
There are good and bad things that come from battery technology finally making some headway:
The Good: Efficient transportation, long lasting mobile electronic devices, and of course light sabers.
The Bad: People get totally freaked out when the engine on a hybrid car shuts down as the electric kicks in. That silence is just plain wrong, the engine should stay running. Oh, that and a lot of my clients are oil companies.
There are two problems with this idea:
1. Can you honestly imagine the federal government not trying to micromanage even more if ALL money went through Washington D.C.? We already have to put up with a mountain of stupid laws because D.C. has the financial leverage... like the drinking age.
2. What if the people in my state prefer low taxes and few services? Will they be able to pay less in taxes? The same plan simply can't work for diverse states.
The difference between auto mechanics and computer repairmen is that the mechanics have a union which forces licensing on its members to boost the price of labor.
Where? (Mechanics do not generally have a special union here in the Dakotas. They tend to be independent contractors.)
Any chance you can find me the name or citation for that case? I could really use it.
Mandrake has gone downhill, in terms of quality, ever since version 9.0. Oddly this aligns in time with the whole France/Iraq/WMD problem.
Clearly the french company MandrakeSoft conspires against the Untied States for their actions in Iraq and is shipping them a crippled distro out of vengance.
Try to have your state lower the drinking age to 19, or opt out of Social Security, or pass a law against abortion or (insert idea here).
Actually, if you read South Dakota v. Dole, its pretty clear that your state is quite free to set the drinking age wherever it likes. (As long as it does not mind paying for its own roads.) Other cases such as Morrison & Lopez, (which held that Washington D.C. cannot make it a crime to carry a firearm in a school zone, or create a civil cause of action for abused women,) have in recent years done much to begin the revival of States' rights.
It was always the commute, or being bored with the work, or wanting to move to another coast.
As a proud citizen of North Dakota, I find this offensive and will be writing my senator about having you censored.
Actually from what I recall free speech issues on regulation of broadcast media are gotten around because the information is sent into everyones homes without any kind of subscription. It has nothing to do with being a channel of commerce. It's like regulating nudity on billboards, etc.
There has to be a threshold finding of interstate commerce though, before Congress can even consider infringing on your first amendment rights.
Washington D.C. can only regulate:
1. Interstate Commerce
2. Taxation and Spending (with limits)
3. Copyright & Patents
4. Civil Rights where a need is identified.
The states can regulate:
1. Everything else.
You miss my point. I am not arguing that "lawmakers" shouldn't be making these laws. I'm arguing that the Federal Government should not be making these laws.
Washington D.C. can only regulate:
1. Interstate Commerce
2. Taxation and Spending (with limits)
3. Copyright & Patents
4. Civil Rights where a need is identified.
The states can regulate:
1. Everything else.
From TFA:
"Cable is a much greater violator in the indecency area," the Alaska Republican told the National Association of Broadcasters, which represents most local television and radio affiliates. "I think we have the same power to deal with cable as over-the-air" broadcasters.
Now let us consider the following:
1. Violator of what, exactly, if there are not laws in place regulating cable right now?
2. You THINK you have the same power to regulate cable as "over-the-air"?
It makes sense that the federal government regulates airwaves as a "channel of commerce." This is fairly straightforward since the airwaves are generally considered publicly owned "space." Cable, however, runs over private property in a physically limited location. While there may be some power to regulate it, how can this be done without interfereing with private contract and first amendment rights?
3. [begin rant] Does it bother anyone else that federal officers will attempt to pass a law just because they "feel" they have the power, and "feel" something is needed? If there must be standards, why not let the bloody states set them and stop trying to distend the limits of federal authority beyond all recognizable bounds? [end rant]
Disclaimer: A wise post once said, the plural of anecdote is not data.
I've run Xandros 2.0 Deluxe at home for about a year now, it has crashed 4-5 times, and only when my cat gets behind the CPU. I don't know exactly what the connection is, but I suspect it is not software related.
Of course I don't agree, because sex is noneconomic activity, often considered a fundamental right, and subject to privacy rights... there is no fundamental right to buy goods on the internet...
Having said that... Your post is incredibly funny and does raise an interesting point of view. If I could, I'd mod it up.
Why wine? Of all forms of alcohol we consume, studies show wine has the most health benefits. Lots of antioxidants and it lowers your cholesterol.
For some reason I feel inclined to point out that, while your reasoning is correct, most of Europe (or the rest of the world, I'm told) does not have a corporate entity tax.
I think this is a good thing.
States need revenue to function and provide services, and they have every right to tax themselves however they see fit to generate this revenue. Where a sales tax is inappropriate, many states have enacted a "Use Tax." This is essentially a tool that taxes the use of products purchased outside the sales tax system, rather than the sale itself.
When we consider the alternative, it only makes sense that states pursue new ways to collect the taxes they need. The folks that smoke internet cigarettes are likely to generate health care costs born by the state, how does the state pay for this? Likewise with ordinary sales tax used to fund your roads, police, school, fire department, court, legislature.....
Personally, I am very impressed that a state took the initiative to meet new methods of conducting business with a new method for collecting taxes. Would we rather our states cling to some old, outmoded taxation model and try to impose burdensome limits on our rights to protect it (like some **AA?)
ProCD v. Zeidenberg considered a transaction between sophisticated parties, not the unwitting consumer to which I am referring. The software in question in that case was subject to a license to which, even the court notes, the puchaser was aware of the general terms.
The court in that case, rightly, did not examine it in terms of a consumer purchase, but rather a purchase for resale. A quick visit to Shepards will provide a litany of cases which have elaborated on distinctions such as these.
I'm afraid you're wrong on all counts.
This seems like the perfect test case for the enforceability of a shrinkwrap EULA in the hands of an ordinary consumer. Previous cases have observed that, where portions of the game require additional "agreement" clicks, such licenses can be enforced, but I have not found any case yet which states that the individual purchasor is bound by a eula he is unable to read until after the sale.
There have been cases which indicate that software licenses in general are just fine, even if they limit rights granted under ordinary copyright law. What does not appear to have been examined is whether these license agreements fall into the realm of state contract law. If such were the case, then different states might have different consumer protection rules.
But then again, I am not your lawyer, and this is just an observation, not legal advice. If you like, feel free to contact me. You can find out how in my profile.
Fortunately, such a system would be constitutionally required to include a "Press here to schedule a court hearing" option. Actually, this would probably result in such court clog as to render the whole system unworkable. Maybe this is a good thing?