Because addicts of certain substances don't just sit in their living room, they run out of money, and in order to avoid complete withdrawl, break into your grandma and granpappies house and bust thier skulls for the monthly check. You can deny it happens, but it does happen. I personally know a meth head who did this. Point being, some substances, when abused, have far reaching consequences that affect people other than the users.
The supreme court has ruled the federal government has the right to regulate, limit, and outright ban, commerce on specific items under the commerce clause. What exactly were you referring to when you said "unconstitutional federal agency" ??
I should also mention, there is another small caveat. Pornography / obscene content is also not allowed. Should you operate wi-fi under HAM license / power levels, and not encrypt it, then pretty much anyone can use it, and if they download pr0n, there is another law you just violated.
If you comply with standard, regular, unlicensed wi-fi power levels, you're fine, encrypt all you want.
If you get a HAM license, and operate the overlapped channels at boosted power levels ( up to 5 watts I think, maybe more ) and the payload data is encrypted, you are breaking the law.
I suspect nothing will happen until, you get reported, or you cause interference, at which point, the white van can come out, monitor your signal, use protocol analyzers to collect data and document that you are violating FCC regulations, then call the police / seize your gear / fine you / sue you / revoke your license, and whatever bad stuff happens.
Also, the first few wi-fi channels apparently overlap with HAM frequencies, and if you get a HAM license, you can operate your wi-fi router/gateway on channels 1-3 ( or something like that ) at higher power levels.
Unfortunately, the 'no-encryption' limitation you mentioned still applies.
... you understand that a computer language, is a mapping of human readable symbols -> cpu instructions, either direct or indirect. If the mapping results in a set of cpu instructions that implements another language, you get another language.
It's not rocket science people, its just math. Wait, maybe it is rocket science.
Not taking into account human variables is simply ignorance.
from wikipedia:
Economics is the social science that analyzes the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services[1]
Economic values *are* human variables. I didn't realize this needed to be stated.
The political aspect of a topic, for example, social security, is "Do we need to provide a mechanism for retirement and disability income." It is a yes or no question, and needs to be resolved politically. That debate occoured a long time ago. The economic mechanics and mathematical structure of providing and budgeting for said service, is a mathematical formula, which can be optimized, and is devoid of political debate in an ideal world.
The current system, rather than use mathematical optimization, involves 500+ monkeys and the public arguing over whether to change the number 5 to a 6 or a 4.
If things are not politically possible, they're not possible. Not recognizing that... is even dumber.
Politics has little to do with reality. You can argue over whether people are paying enough, or too little, or receiving enough, or too little... but in doing so you are operating a political system that ignores reality and creates and solves the same problem over and over again, for the sake of solving a problem. No amount of democratic procedure can solve a reality based problem, due to the fact that democracy ( allowing everyone to have an opinion, or a vote, and using the results to pass legislation ) can pacify the public while at the same time, ignoring the nature and reality of the issue at hand. Politicians regularly use the complex nature of issues in order to gain power at the expense of properly modeling and dealing with reality, and the system will continue to be flawed until it addresses reality. This is ideology driven decisions and politics, not data driven mathematically sound problem solving.
While Sweden may in fact have had one of the best formulas, it too was flawed, if it ran into trouble during a downturn, and required people to argue over it to save it.
As a software engineer, I can tell you, if large, complex pieces of software, were not split into logical compartments ( modules ), each solving a smaller problem, then you can pretty much guarantee that the entire system will fail / suck. While Social Security may exist legislatively and administratively as a separate program / department, financially the funds are co-mingled and combined with the larger systems budget. This produces the situation where congress and the public wastes all of its political thought and effort, trying to determine if its fixed or broke, and if broke how to fix it. It is mind boggling how much intellectual capital and opportunity is wasted on a math formula with no more than 5 or 6 terms.
fyi... My point was more about the fact that, Social Security, the issue and the program, is in fact, dynamic in nature. A dynamic algorithm, that continually adjusted to insure its integrity, is more productive, than the members of congress, constantly wasting time and effort, manually adjusting the algorithm by committee.
It wasnt my intention to imply, Soc Sec as a mechanism is doomed, or unfixable. Only that it would be nice if congress could finally stop arguing about it, and fucking with it, and use math to insure its continual integrity.
Wikipedia... "Assets in 2010 were $2.6 trillion, an amount that is expected to be adequate to cover the next 10 years. In 2023, total income and interest earned on assets are projected to no longer cover expenditures for Social Security, as demographic shifts burden the system. By 2035, the ratio of potential retirees to working age persons will be 37 percent — there will be less than three potential income earners for every retiree in the population. The trust fund would then be exhausted by 2036 without legislative action.[9]"
It is in fact, running out of money.
Eventually, in the late 2030s, SS might not have the money to pay benefits.
There is no maybe about it. If left unchanged, it *will* run out of money. If the changes you suggested are made, it will mean that the new generation pays in more, and receives less, than the previous generation. This is proof the current static constants and formulas are flawed.
Almost a day doesn't go by, where you can't turn the on tv news, and see politicians from both sides, using the Social Security program as a weapon of fear, in an attempt to get re-elected. They keep telling people it's in danger, you better vote for me, I'll fix it. A dynamic formula would give the talking heads something else to talk about, and finally put out the fire.
A privately operated insurance company, isn't allowed to mix pension/benefit funds with operating funds. Our wise leaders realized this was a bad idea. They also exempted themselves from the same high standard, and regularly remind us of why its a bad idea.
Yes. It's also funny how it's been known for 60's years Social Security was going to run out of money, but the current crop of beneficiaries, who marched the streets in the name of fairness, equality, and civility, didn't do a damn thing about it. They left it for their kids to sort out.
A simple dynamic algorithm that took into account cost of living, average income, worker / beneficiary ratio, with some ARIMA sprinkled in for adaptation would have insured the proper payments in -> out. If you wanted to make it really special, you'd have it fund itself using tariffs against goods imported from whatever nation is bleeding us dry that decade, instead of prancing around singing the praises of free trade while we go broke.
It's not rocket science, its evolution. Let the machines do what the machines do best, and keep the politicians out of it.
Standardize on a re-districting algorithm, and use it.
Social Securities funds wouldn't be in the toilet, if someone just hit re-calc once a year, on the spreadsheet that contained formulas that accounted for the dynamic nature of the population. Instead, we get to argue over static numbers until the sun explodes.
It was a purely hypothetical scenario, meant to illustrate that a de-regulatory action could be beneficial.
ie. Entirely made up.
Sweating the details of a made up hypothetical scenario is silly, as no amount of nitpicking said made up details will change the fact that legislation, de-regulatory in nature or otherwise, can create positive and/or negative benefits.
Slashdot Mirror
Because addicts of certain substances don't just sit in their living room, they run out of money, and in order to avoid complete withdrawl, break into your grandma and granpappies house and bust thier skulls for the monthly check. You can deny it happens, but it does happen. I personally know a meth head who did this. Point being, some substances, when abused, have far reaching consequences that affect people other than the users.
The supreme court has ruled the federal government has the right to regulate, limit, and outright ban, commerce on specific items under the commerce clause. What exactly were you referring to when you said "unconstitutional federal agency" ??
Nail on head. +1
I should also mention, there is another small caveat. Pornography / obscene content is also not allowed. Should you operate wi-fi under HAM license / power levels, and not encrypt it, then pretty much anyone can use it, and if they download pr0n, there is another law you just violated.
If you comply with standard, regular, unlicensed wi-fi power levels, you're fine, encrypt all you want.
If you get a HAM license, and operate the overlapped channels at boosted power levels ( up to 5 watts I think, maybe more ) and the payload data is encrypted, you are breaking the law.
I suspect nothing will happen until, you get reported, or you cause interference, at which point, the white van can come out, monitor your signal, use protocol analyzers to collect data and document that you are violating FCC regulations, then call the police / seize your gear / fine you / sue you / revoke your license, and whatever bad stuff happens.
Also, the first few wi-fi channels apparently overlap with HAM frequencies, and if you get a HAM license, you can operate your wi-fi router/gateway on channels 1-3 ( or something like that ) at higher power levels.
Unfortunately, the 'no-encryption' limitation you mentioned still applies.
Perhaps you haven't heard. That is in the pipeline.
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/05/automotive-black-boxes/
And it's not just GPS, its GPS and event data.
It's only a discovery if you're an over-enthusiastic n00b at this game.
To the rest of us, its same-old-shit-different-day.
... you understand that a computer language, is a mapping of human readable symbols -> cpu instructions, either direct or indirect. If the mapping results in a set of cpu instructions that implements another language, you get another language.
It's not rocket science people, its just math. Wait, maybe it is rocket science.
Not taking into account human variables is simply ignorance.
from wikipedia:
Economics is the social science that analyzes the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services[1]
Economic values *are* human variables. I didn't realize this needed to be stated.
The political aspect of a topic, for example, social security, is "Do we need to provide a mechanism for retirement and disability income." It is a yes or no question, and needs to be resolved politically. That debate occoured a long time ago. The economic mechanics and mathematical structure of providing and budgeting for said service, is a mathematical formula, which can be optimized, and is devoid of political debate in an ideal world.
The current system, rather than use mathematical optimization, involves 500+ monkeys and the public arguing over whether to change the number 5 to a 6 or a 4.
Hope this clarifies.
"make small changes"
You really have missed the entire point of this post, while simultaneously providing evidence to back it up.
Keep up the good work Euler.
If things are not politically possible, they're not possible. Not recognizing that... is even dumber.
Politics has little to do with reality. You can argue over whether people are paying enough, or too little, or receiving enough, or too little ... but in doing so you are operating a political system that ignores reality and creates and solves the same problem over and over again, for the sake of solving a problem. No amount of democratic procedure can solve a reality based problem, due to the fact that democracy ( allowing everyone to have an opinion, or a vote, and using the results to pass legislation ) can pacify the public while at the same time, ignoring the nature and reality of the issue at hand. Politicians regularly use the complex nature of issues in order to gain power at the expense of properly modeling and dealing with reality, and the system will continue to be flawed until it addresses reality. This is ideology driven decisions and politics, not data driven mathematically sound problem solving.
While Sweden may in fact have had one of the best formulas, it too was flawed, if it ran into trouble during a downturn, and required people to argue over it to save it.
As a software engineer, I can tell you, if large, complex pieces of software, were not split into logical compartments ( modules ), each solving a smaller problem, then you can pretty much guarantee that the entire system will fail / suck. While Social Security may exist legislatively and administratively as a separate program / department, financially the funds are co-mingled and combined with the larger systems budget. This produces the situation where congress and the public wastes all of its political thought and effort, trying to determine if its fixed or broke, and if broke how to fix it. It is mind boggling how much intellectual capital and opportunity is wasted on a math formula with no more than 5 or 6 terms.
fyi ... My point was more about the fact that, Social Security, the issue and the program, is in fact, dynamic in nature. A dynamic algorithm, that continually adjusted to insure its integrity, is more productive, than the members of congress, constantly wasting time and effort, manually adjusting the algorithm by committee.
It wasnt my intention to imply, Soc Sec as a mechanism is doomed, or unfixable. Only that it would be nice if congress could finally stop arguing about it, and fucking with it, and use math to insure its continual integrity.
Except SS isn't running out of money.
Wikipedia ... "Assets in 2010 were $2.6 trillion, an amount that is expected to be adequate to cover the next 10 years. In 2023, total income and interest earned on assets are projected to no longer cover expenditures for Social Security, as demographic shifts burden the system. By 2035, the ratio of potential retirees to working age persons will be 37 percent — there will be less than three potential income earners for every retiree in the population. The trust fund would then be exhausted by 2036 without legislative action.[9]"
It is in fact, running out of money.
Eventually, in the late 2030s, SS might not have the money to pay benefits.
There is no maybe about it. If left unchanged, it *will* run out of money. If the changes you suggested are made, it will mean that the new generation pays in more, and receives less, than the previous generation. This is proof the current static constants and formulas are flawed.
Almost a day doesn't go by, where you can't turn the on tv news, and see politicians from both sides, using the Social Security program as a weapon of fear, in an attempt to get re-elected. They keep telling people it's in danger, you better vote for me, I'll fix it. A dynamic formula would give the talking heads something else to talk about, and finally put out the fire.
A privately operated insurance company, isn't allowed to mix pension/benefit funds with operating funds. Our wise leaders realized this was a bad idea. They also exempted themselves from the same high standard, and regularly remind us of why its a bad idea.
only a score of 2 ?
;)
I would have thought there were more Blade Runner fans on slashdot than that.
Im off to dream of electric sheep. Zzzzzzzz
Yes. It's also funny how it's been known for 60's years Social Security was going to run out of money, but the current crop of beneficiaries, who marched the streets in the name of fairness, equality, and civility, didn't do a damn thing about it. They left it for their kids to sort out.
A simple dynamic algorithm that took into account cost of living, average income, worker / beneficiary ratio, with some ARIMA sprinkled in for adaptation would have insured the proper payments in -> out. If you wanted to make it really special, you'd have it fund itself using tariffs against goods imported from whatever nation is bleeding us dry that decade, instead of prancing around singing the praises of free trade while we go broke.
It's not rocket science, its evolution. Let the machines do what the machines do best, and keep the politicians out of it.
Solve the problem once, and not more than once.
Standardize on a re-districting algorithm, and use it.
Social Securities funds wouldn't be in the toilet, if someone just hit re-calc once a year, on the spreadsheet that contained formulas that accounted for the dynamic nature of the population. Instead, we get to argue over static numbers until the sun explodes.
Dumb.
If only the people issuing the patents, arguing the patents, and judging the validity of the patents, were skilled.
Welcome to Roy Battys world. If the spinners don't get you, time will.
an excellent *working* title ;)
Lets hope she's naked in this one ... it'll be worth the money then.
It was a purely hypothetical scenario, meant to illustrate that a de-regulatory action could be beneficial.
ie. Entirely made up.
Sweating the details of a made up hypothetical scenario is silly, as no amount of nitpicking said made up details will change the fact that legislation, de-regulatory in nature or otherwise, can create positive and/or negative benefits.
Oh yeah ... *thats* why we hooked the pump to the internet.
;)
You should run for mayor. You gotz da answers w00t !
Connecting your water pumps to the public internet.
Der der der.
When you control the flow of information you can make people believe what you want them to believe
About the only valid accurate point in your rant.