His net worth is a matter of some debate. Since you don't seem to know the difference net worth and cash in the bank, let's pretend he had $4 billion cash. Divide that by 320 million people in the US. That's $12 each. $12 will fund quite the liberal utopia.
Of course 98% of it isn't cash, it's business equipment. It's trucks and buildings and ip phones that combined, are the businesses he invests in.
There are 536 billionaires in the US. If you take ALL of their stuff, and sell it off to Chima or whoever, you get about $3500 per person- once. You took all of their resources, so they longer have it and you can't take it again next year. Which is why that kind of action is what countries do as they are collapsing, after they've defaulted on their national debt. It's economic suicide because you've sold off your means of production, your golden goose that lays the golden eggs.
> Maybe we would have a better society and a better polity if we tried as hard as possible to give everyone a first rate education.
No, no we wouldn't. We'd have a hell hole with no food or clean water if we all spent our time reading Homer rather than getting a six month certification in water treatment and getting busy running the water trestment plant.
Studying Homer is nice and all, but what you liberals never understand is that everything has a COST. A first rate post-graduate education costs $150,000. You have to pay for it. What do you want to give up where that $150,000 is being spent today? If you want to look to the federal government to to pay for it, we could do that by moving all the funds from
highway construction, the school lunch program, the FDA, the FCC, welfare, and about a dozen other things. Is studying philosophy more important to you than having roads and safe food? If so, you'd stop spending resources on roads and food inspection and start spending those resources on liberal arts instead. I think that would be incredibly stupid.
> If people are really unable to hire anyone to flip their pancakes for them then why aren't pancake flippers paid $100/hour?
Pancakes aren't worth $100. Would YOU pay $4,000 for a floral arrangement, if for some reason that's what florists charged? No, you'd simply do without the flowers. Because flowers aren't worth $4,000. The amount someone will pay to have a job done is limited by the value of getting it done. When things are expensive, people simply don't buy them. You don't pay someone to feed you peeled grapes because the cost would be higher than the value. In other words, it would be a waste of money. Spending more than something is worth is just wasting resources.
Suppose everyone did spend their work days trying to cure cancer. In about a month, you notice something very interesting. They'd all be dead. With nobody farming, nobody wholesaling food, nobody preparing food, nobody packaging food, nobody packaging food, nobody driving food around in semis, and nobody selling food, there would be no food to eat. So we'd all starve. "Pay the farmers and truck drivers more", you say. Okay, we'll pay each of the twenty people required to get a burger from pasture to your mouth $50 each. That means it costs $100+ to make your burger. Which you can't afford, of course, because you (and everybody else) are still looking for a cancer-research job, because there are ten times as many cancer researchers as there cancer patients.
Maybe you imagine that when burgers cost $100 each and having your house painted costs $50,000, cancer researchers will earn $4 million. They wouldn't, but let's pretend they would. Congratulations, you just invented hyperinflation. Ask pre-WWII Germany how well that works.
The fact remains, most of what's needed to have a decent society (food, firefighters, road workers, etc) doesn't improve much with post-graduate education. We actually need road construction more than we need cancer researchers- living longer doesn't do much good when you're all living in a third-world hell hole. And teaching calculus to the road construction workers wastes his time and your money.
Same here. I just bought a 16 GB ipad mini. They are available with more memory; I don't have any need for more. Sure we COULD fill the storage if we wanted to shoot a bunch of pointless video with it, but that's not what we want to do with it.
We use it for abcmouse.com and a few apps which my toddler's preschool uses. My toddler won't be shooting feature films with it, she'll be using abcmouse and the PBS Kids app. We'll probably use all of 64 MEGAbytes.
Unfortunately , there are a whole lot more middle class people than rich people. As in orders of magnitude more. There just aren't that many rich people. You could put 100% tax on rich people and get enough revenue to run the governmnet for a few _hours_.
You may recall that Obama's proposal to "tax the rich" ended up including teachers and firefighters . That's because there are only a few billionaires and there are 320 MILLION other people. If you emptied Donald Trump's bank account, you could give everyone in America 50 cents.
The other way to do it is to say that anyone who has enough of a nest egg to pay for their own retirement is "rich". That's 90% of the millionaires- people who have saved between $1 million and $3 million. The government could take their retirement fund, but then they'd end up on the government dole, so the net result is nil. All that accomplishes is teaching people they shouldn't bother saving to take care of themselves.
There are two things you're missing. The two end up working well together.
First, many, many people choose not to do the hard work, the studying, to really understand high school level curriculum. They're just not interested in studying. High school is 100% paid for by the government, yet "are you smarter than a fifth grader?" is often answered in the negative. Look at 6th grade exams from 1980 and high school is exams from today. You'll notice they cover much of the same material. Probably about half the people won't earn a college degree. You can pay their tuition, but it'll be wasted because they don't have the desire or drive to do it all - college level studies while taking care of their kids, etc. Much fewer have the desire plus fortitude plus the mental talents to achieve masters and even phd degrees. At my college, many of the students pay less than $4,000 / year after grants. Yet, fewer than half graduate. They don't/ can't do the work even though (because?) someone else is paying for it. For their own reasons, people don't want to spend 25 years studying.
Also, it so happens that houses need to be painted. Tile needs to be installed. Pancakes need to be cooked. Apartments need to be shown. Tires need to be installed. MOST of what needs to be done in order to have a nice society doesn't make use of advanced education. Spending $100,000 teaching someone Homer before they get to work spraying for bugs doesn't make their pest control services more valuable. It just wastes their time and our money.
Most people don't want to spend their lives studying, and most jobs which need to be done don't require a lifetime of study. A phd for a DMV clerk doesn't make the job more valuable, it just wastes time that they could have been working.
Bitcoin is a digital "currency". It happens to use a block chain to publish a record of transactions in that currency. Currency and transaction records are two different things. A digital currency doesn't have to use a block chain, and a block chain doesn't have to be tied to a currency.
The banks might use a block chain to publish a record of US dollar transactions, or stock transactions. Maybe they'll have a chain for Tesla stock, so when your monthly retirement savings occurs it'll record "JcMorin bought 10 shares of Tesla from Alice". Rather than recording transactions that occur in Bitcoins, the chain will record transactions of TSLA.
All that's needed is a way to validate the statement that you are the new owner of the stock. So in this example, Alice is now retired, so she sells her 10 shares of Tesla. You buy them. THAT is the transaction which gets added to the block chain. There's no currency being generated.
There are two different concepts. Bitcoin is a digital "currency". It happens to use a block chain to publish a record of transactions in that currency. Currency and transaction records are two different things. A digital currency doesn't have to use a block chain, and a block chain doesn't have to be tied to a currency.
The "proof of work" is used for the CURRENCY, to avoid having a limitless supply of Bitcoins. You want to limit people's ability to produce new bitcoins. You don't need (or want) to limit people's ability to validate the transaction history, which is what the block chain is for.
The banks might use a block chain to publish a record of US dollar transactions. Maybe they'll have a chain for Tesla stock, so when your monthly retirement savings occurs it'll record "fisted bought 10 shares of Tesla". Rather than recording transactions that occur in Bitcoins, the chain will record transactions of TSLA.
There's no new digital currency involved, so no "proof of work" is relevant. All that's needed is a way to validate the statement that you are the new owner of the stock. So in this example, Alice is now retired, so she sells her 10 shares of Tesla. You buy them. THAT is the transaction which gets added to the block chain. There's no currency being generated.
Stupid in schools happens all the time, to kids of all backgrounds. In recent case, a second grader was eating toast. Apparently he "pointed" the toast at a classmate. Wham! Suspended under their zero-tolerance gun policy. Hello, toast is not a gun! That kid happened to be caucasian.
I should have noted that it actually doesn't only apply to companies which do any business with the federal government, it also applies to companies which provide services or to those companies , and those who provide services to thise second-level companies , and so on down the line.
It would be LEGAL under this EO, though inconvenient, to move only the lower-paid jobs (interns, entry-level positions"that don't require a degree) oversees while keeping the rest of the facility in the US. Of course there are other penalties for hiring in the US for higher-paid jobs. As we've seen, many companies, like HP, decide to just move the entire facility overseas.
Oh indeed, asking representatives of customers about requirements sure isn't very effective. Even worse is trying to get requirements by asking someome in our department, who asked someone in the users' department, who may or may not have asked the users. I always try hard to actually watch real users actually do the task, and say "show me when might you need multiple addresses ". If it's not possible to get to the users desk, I try to talk to them on the phone get screenshots , etc. I want to understand their process better than they do, so I can build tools which improve their process.
We love to complain about poorly specified requirements, yet we often do a poor job of getting the requirements. Rarely have I been turned down when I asked "can I come see?" We fail to ask "what happens with the information my program gives you? What do you do with it after you run my program?" All too often the answer is "I paste it into a spreadsheet and... so I can get the information I actually need." Then what do you do next? "I type those numbers into foo.exe." Of course foo.exe just puts the information into the same database that we got the initial data from. The entire process they do each day is a 30-minute way of accomplishing "insert into daily_summary select sum(blah) from items".
"If you want people to less of something, put a tax on it." - President Barak Obama (shortly before signing one of the largest taxes on employment in the last 50 years).
More recently, POTUS ruled that any companies who do any business witht the federal government (most large companies) are not allowed to have their lower-paid jobs in the US, hiring students and other lower cost workers. Instead, they must either outsource, or overpay for these positions, putting them at a disadvantage to competitors.
Yeah I'll get excited when most paid programmers can code. I'd say about 25% are reasonably competent and 10% are actually good. I too have done a lot of rewriting.
One case was - the guy was a pretty good software architect, and a terrible coder. The overall system worked well and the structure made sense. It was extensible. But if you looked inside any function, the lines of code were all kinds of bad. They didn't know about 80% of the errors their code threw only because the other errors hid them. For example, an important hourly,cron job was full of error-ridden code, but they didn't get the error messages because the cron job hadn't run for five months.
Management has no way of knowing how much technical debt they've accumulated, so they don't know - can't know - that a certain programmer put them $150,000 further in the hole.
I suppose your right, "claimed" the power isn't exactly the right word. They've simply declared new amd different wording, without explicitly claiming the power to do so. Perhaps I should have said "asserted" the power or "assumed" the power, rather than "claimed" the power.
You mention the wording of the Constitution can sometimes be ambiguous. Sometimes, it is. Sometimes, the SC asserts that the words "regulate interstate commerce " shall mean "prohibit things which are neither interstate nor commerce ". (Growing your own food, for your own family to eat.) The wheat cases were a direct rewriting of the unambiguous terms of the Constitution, plain and simple.
Well, we've seen the results . Has Canada been invaded since the US Navy was formed? Have they had any need for their own Navy? (Other than for Coast Guard type operations).
Liberal: One who is full of their own ideas, and refuses to learn from historical facts about those ideas.
>> We WANT changes to the government which controls so much of our lives to be done carefully, thoughtfully, slowly.
> Yeah, you mean like the USAPATRIOTACT, the 2,000+ pages of wholly unconstitutional tripe that was SUPPOSEDLY written in, "Reviewed" and PASSED in TWO WEEKS?!?
I said the changes to the government should be done carefully, thoughtfully, slowly. When Congress works quickly, we end up with the patriot act. Kinda proves that we don't want Congress acting rashly, quickly, and recklessly, doesn't it?
> Note that if the Congress were not being so wimpy, it could pass the same law again with a minor change in wording, and again, and again, and the court's reaction time would leave the law in effect more of the time than not.
Oh, they do. When they're wise, they consider the Constitutional concerns brought up by the court and make a "minor change" that addresses that concern.
Other times, the court is so loathe to confront Congress that they rule that the item is a) a tax, and therefore within the power of Congress, AND b) NOT a tax, and therefore doesn't have to originate in the House.
Other times, they rule that the administration's surveillance program is unconstitutional, yet choose not to issue a order that it be stopped. Because maybe someday Congress will fix it such that it's no longer Constitutional.
On the other hand, the president recently announced that he has the power to unilaterally rewrite immigration law BECAUSE CONGRESS CHOSE NOT TO make the changes he wanted. Seriously, that's the administration's justification- Congress didn't do what we wanted, therefore we have the power to write out own laws. The framers never intended the president to be de facto king.
That's true, somehow my eyes skipped passed the first one. I did, however, copy and paste the full text of the first amendment, so it was included in my post.
I can see why you might say that. On other hand, US Democrats believe that when Democrats design a paper ballot, then the state Democratic party approves that paper ballot, you end up with a paper ballot that democrat voters aren't smart enough to use. There are a lot of errors on those paper ballots, they say. They may well be right . They may have done a terrible job of designing the ballot, their committee who reviewed and approved the ballot may have been incompetent, and their voters may be less than competent as well.
> It's kind of like the Canadian Navy. If you think about it; well sure they would exist.
Technically they exist, and they do serve a role, a role similar in some ways to the US Coast Guard.
Canada's navy operates 1 destroyer, 12 frigates, 4 patrol submarines, 12 coastal defense vessels and 8 unarmed patrol/training vessels. They have about 8,000 sailors.
Each US carrier battle group includes about eight surface warships like those of the RCN, and typically two submarines. Plus a carrier. With 70 planes on it. Each carrier battle group has about 7,500 sailors - roughly the same size as the entire Royal Canadian Navy.
It's good to be close friends with the country who has 10 such carrier groups - Canada doesn't really need much of a navy when they're buddies with the US. That's an an under-appreciated benefit to the US of having a navy roughly as powerful as all other navies combined. Sure, we can defend ourselves materially, but we get just as much benefit from the fact that friendly nations enjoy our protection, and therefore want to be our close allies.
The person posting wasn't making money from it, it was non-commercial in terms of suing the person posting it. I'm not sure if Youtube had ads at the time. In a suit against YouTube in it's current form, it would be commercial use.
2) The nature of the use
It's a very short video of small children, unlike the product sold by the record company. The subject of the video is the kids, the song is somewhat incidental.
3) the amount of the original work used, in proportion to the total. Only 20 seconds of the song are used.
4) the degree to which the use affects the value of the original work - does it compete with authorized copies?
The video contained 20 seconds of low-quality audio. Approximately nobody would listen to the video instead of buying the song. In other words, no harm no foul.
The video scores quite well on at least three of the four points to be considered fair use. The degree to which it was commercial depends on how YouTube was doing their ads in 2007, and if the label wants to sue Youtube or the person posting it.
Courts may also consider other factors as well to determine fairness, but they must consider the four factors listed above.
Article III says that the courts shall rule as to the facts of a case (did he do the crime or not?) and which law is applicable (is it theft or embezzlement?). No part of the Constitution anywhere says that the courts may change any law, much less change the Constitution itself. The two process for changing the Constitution is in article V, which lists the two ways that it may be done.
In the wheat cases, the SC did essentially claim that they had the power to rewrite the interstate commerce clause, by removing both words "interstate" and "commerce". They have been granted no such power, however. Their power is to decide whether or not a given item is in interstate commerce or not, a decision to regulate an item which is neither in commerce nor moving interstate is illegitimate. The early court itself ruled that it did not have the power to override the plain text of the Constitution: âoeAll laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.â (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.)
The court may have been informed by the words of Thomas Jefferson: Every law consistent with the Constitution will have been made in pursuance of the powers granted by it. Every usurpation or law repugnant to it cannot have been made in pursuance of its powers. The latter will be nugatory and void.â (Thomas Jefferson)
On this basis, as the Madison court agreed, any decision of the court which purports to change the meaning of the Constitution is thusly null and void, without force of law.
Slashdot Mirror
His net worth is a matter of some debate. Since you don't seem to know the difference net worth and cash in the bank, let's pretend he had $4 billion cash. Divide that by 320 million people in the US. That's $12 each. $12 will fund quite the liberal utopia.
Of course 98% of it isn't cash, it's business equipment. It's trucks and buildings and ip phones that combined, are the businesses he invests in.
There are 536 billionaires in the US. If you take ALL of their stuff, and sell it off to Chima or whoever, you get about $3500 per person- once. You took all of their resources, so they longer have it and you can't take it again next year. Which is why that kind of action is what countries do as they are collapsing, after they've defaulted on their national debt. It's economic suicide because you've sold off your means of production, your golden goose that lays the golden eggs.
> Maybe we would have a better society and a better polity if we tried as hard as possible to give everyone a first rate education.
No, no we wouldn't. We'd have a hell hole with no food or clean water if we all spent our time reading Homer rather than getting a six month certification in water treatment and getting busy running the water trestment plant.
Studying Homer is nice and all, but what you liberals never understand is that everything has a COST. A first rate post-graduate education costs $150,000. You have to pay for it. What do you want to give up where that $150,000 is being spent today? If you want to look to the federal government to to pay for it, we could do that by moving all the funds from
highway construction, the school lunch program, the FDA, the FCC, welfare, and about a dozen other things. Is studying philosophy more important to you than having roads and safe food? If so, you'd stop spending resources on roads and food inspection and start spending those resources on liberal arts instead. I think that would be incredibly stupid.
> If people are really unable to hire anyone to flip their pancakes for them then why aren't pancake flippers paid $100/hour?
Pancakes aren't worth $100. Would YOU pay $4,000 for a floral arrangement, if for some reason that's what florists charged? No, you'd simply do without the flowers. Because flowers aren't worth $4,000. The amount someone will pay to have a job done is limited by the value of getting it done. When things are expensive, people simply don't buy them. You don't pay someone to feed you peeled grapes because the cost would be higher than the value. In other words, it would be a waste of money. Spending more than something is worth is just wasting resources.
Suppose everyone did spend their work days trying to cure cancer. In about a month, you notice something very interesting. They'd all be dead. With nobody farming, nobody wholesaling food, nobody preparing food, nobody packaging food, nobody packaging food, nobody driving food around in semis, and nobody selling food, there would be no food to eat. So we'd all starve. "Pay the farmers and truck drivers more", you say. Okay, we'll pay each of the twenty people required to get a burger from pasture to your mouth $50 each. That means it costs $100+ to make your burger. Which you can't afford, of course, because you (and everybody else) are still looking for a cancer-research job, because there are ten times as many cancer researchers as there cancer patients.
Maybe you imagine that when burgers cost $100 each and having your house painted costs $50,000, cancer researchers will earn $4 million. They wouldn't, but let's pretend they would. Congratulations, you just invented hyperinflation. Ask pre-WWII Germany how well that works.
The fact remains, most of what's needed to have a decent society (food, firefighters, road workers, etc) doesn't improve much with post-graduate education. We actually need road construction more than we need cancer researchers- living longer doesn't do much good when you're all living in a third-world hell hole. And teaching calculus to the road construction workers wastes his time and your money.
Same here. I just bought a 16 GB ipad mini. They are available with more memory; I don't have any need for more. Sure we COULD fill the storage if we wanted to shoot a bunch of pointless video with it, but that's not what we want to do with it.
We use it for abcmouse.com and a few apps which my toddler's preschool uses. My toddler won't be shooting feature films with it, she'll be using abcmouse and the PBS Kids app. We'll probably use all of 64 MEGAbytes.
Unfortunately , there are a whole lot more middle class people than rich people. As in orders of magnitude more. There just aren't that many rich people. You could put 100% tax on rich people and get enough revenue to run the governmnet for a few _hours_.
You may recall that Obama's proposal to "tax the rich" ended up including teachers and firefighters . That's because there are only a few billionaires and there are 320 MILLION other people. If you emptied Donald Trump's bank account, you could give everyone in America 50 cents.
The other way to do it is to say that anyone who has enough of a nest egg to pay for their own retirement is "rich". That's 90% of the millionaires- people who have saved between $1 million and $3 million. The government could take their retirement fund, but then they'd end up on the government dole, so the net result is nil. All that accomplishes is teaching people they shouldn't bother saving to take care of themselves.
There are two things you're missing. The two end up working well together.
First, many, many people choose not to do the hard work, the studying, to really understand high school level curriculum. They're just not interested in studying. High school is 100% paid for by the government, yet "are you smarter than a fifth grader?" is often answered in the negative. Look at 6th grade exams from 1980 and high school is exams from today. You'll notice they cover much of the same material. Probably about half the people won't earn a college degree. You can pay their tuition, but it'll be wasted because they don't have the desire or drive to do it all - college level studies while taking care of their kids, etc. Much fewer have the desire plus fortitude plus the mental talents to achieve masters and even phd degrees. At my college, many of the students pay less than $4,000 / year after grants. Yet, fewer than half graduate. They don't/ can't do the work even though (because?) someone else is paying for it. For their own reasons, people don't want to spend 25 years studying.
Also, it so happens that houses need to be painted. Tile needs to be installed. Pancakes need to be cooked. Apartments need to be shown. Tires need to be installed. MOST of what needs to be done in order to have a nice society doesn't make use of advanced education. Spending $100,000 teaching someone Homer before they get to work spraying for bugs doesn't make their pest control services more valuable. It just wastes their time and our money.
Most people don't want to spend their lives studying, and most jobs which need to be done don't require a lifetime of study. A phd for a DMV clerk doesn't make the job more valuable, it just wastes time that they could have been working.
The real, legitimate president who actually won the election invented the internet.
Also, he invented the strategy of applying different rules in each voting precinct in order to exclude voters in precincts that favored your opponent.
Bitcoin is a digital "currency". It happens to use a block chain to publish a record of transactions in that currency. Currency and transaction records are two different things. A digital currency doesn't have to use a block chain, and a block chain doesn't have to be tied to a currency.
The banks might use a block chain to publish a record of US dollar transactions, or stock transactions. Maybe they'll have a chain for Tesla stock, so when your monthly retirement savings occurs it'll record "JcMorin bought 10 shares of Tesla from Alice". Rather than recording transactions that occur in Bitcoins, the chain will record transactions of TSLA.
All that's needed is a way to validate the statement that you are the new owner of the stock. So in this example, Alice is now retired, so she sells her 10 shares of Tesla. You buy them. THAT is the transaction which gets added to the block chain. There's no currency being generated.
There are two different concepts. Bitcoin is a digital "currency". It happens to use a block chain to publish a record of transactions in that currency. Currency and transaction records are two different things. A digital currency doesn't have to use a block chain, and a block chain doesn't have to be tied to a currency.
The "proof of work" is used for the CURRENCY, to avoid having a limitless supply of Bitcoins. You want to limit people's ability to produce new bitcoins. You don't need (or want) to limit people's ability to validate the transaction history, which is what the block chain is for.
The banks might use a block chain to publish a record of US dollar transactions. Maybe they'll have a chain for Tesla stock, so when your monthly retirement savings occurs it'll record "fisted bought 10 shares of Tesla". Rather than recording transactions that occur in Bitcoins, the chain will record transactions of TSLA.
There's no new digital currency involved, so no "proof of work" is relevant. All that's needed is a way to validate the statement that you are the new owner of the stock. So in this example, Alice is now retired, so she sells her 10 shares of Tesla. You buy them. THAT is the transaction which gets added to the block chain. There's no currency being generated.
Stupid in schools happens all the time, to kids of all backgrounds. In recent case, a second grader was eating toast. Apparently he "pointed" the toast at a classmate. Wham! Suspended under their zero-tolerance gun policy. Hello, toast is not a gun! That kid happened to be caucasian.
Here's the executive order.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/F...
I should have noted that it actually doesn't only apply to companies which do any business with the federal government, it also applies to companies which provide services or to those companies , and those who provide services to thise second-level companies , and so on down the line.
It would be LEGAL under this EO, though inconvenient, to move only the lower-paid jobs (interns, entry-level positions"that don't require a degree) oversees while keeping the rest of the facility in the US. Of course there are other penalties for hiring in the US for higher-paid jobs. As we've seen, many companies, like HP, decide to just move the entire facility overseas.
Oh indeed, asking representatives of customers about requirements sure isn't very effective. Even worse is trying to get requirements by asking someome in our department, who asked someone in the users' department, who may or may not have asked the users. I always try hard to actually watch real users actually do the task, and say "show me when might you need multiple addresses ". If it's not possible to get to the users desk, I try to talk to them on the phone get screenshots , etc. I want to understand their process better than they do, so I can build tools which improve their process.
We love to complain about poorly specified requirements, yet we often do a poor job of getting the requirements. Rarely have I been turned down when I asked "can I come see?" We fail to ask "what happens with the information my program gives you? What do you do with it after you run my program?" All too often the answer is "I paste it into a spreadsheet and ... so I can get the information I actually need." Then what do you do next? "I type those numbers into foo.exe." Of course foo.exe just puts the information into the same database that we got the initial data from. The entire process they do each day is a 30-minute way of accomplishing "insert into daily_summary select sum(blah) from items".
"If you want people to less of something, put a tax on it."
- President Barak Obama (shortly before signing one of the largest taxes on employment in the last 50 years).
More recently, POTUS ruled that any companies who do any business witht the federal government (most large companies) are not allowed to have their lower-paid jobs in the US, hiring students and other lower cost workers. Instead, they must either outsource, or overpay for these positions, putting them at a disadvantage to competitors.
Is a mor-man the male analogue to a mer-maid? English, mother fucker, do you speak it?
Yeah I'll get excited when most paid programmers can code. I'd say about 25% are reasonably competent and 10% are actually good. I too have done a lot of rewriting.
One case was - the guy was a pretty good software architect, and a terrible coder. The overall system worked well and the structure made sense. It was extensible. But if you looked inside any function, the lines of code were all kinds of bad. They didn't know about 80% of the errors their code threw only because the other errors hid them. For example, an important hourly,cron job was full of error-ridden code, but they didn't get the error messages because the cron job hadn't run for five months.
Management has no way of knowing how much technical debt they've accumulated, so they don't know - can't know - that a certain programmer put them $150,000 further in the hole.
I suppose your right, "claimed" the power isn't exactly the right word. They've simply declared new amd different wording, without explicitly claiming the power to do so. Perhaps I should have said "asserted" the power or "assumed" the power, rather than "claimed" the power.
You mention the wording of the Constitution can sometimes be ambiguous. Sometimes, it is. Sometimes, the SC asserts that the words "regulate interstate commerce " shall mean "prohibit things which are neither interstate nor commerce ". (Growing your own food, for your own family to eat.) The wheat cases were a direct rewriting of the unambiguous terms of the Constitution, plain and simple.
> wouldn't canada (or anybody) be safer
Well, we've seen the results . Has Canada been invaded since the US Navy was formed? Have they had any need for their own Navy? (Other than for Coast Guard type operations).
Liberal:
One who is full of their own ideas, and refuses to learn from historical facts about those ideas.
>> We WANT changes to the government which controls so much of our lives to be done carefully, thoughtfully, slowly.
> Yeah, you mean like the USAPATRIOTACT, the 2,000+ pages of wholly unconstitutional tripe that was SUPPOSEDLY written in, "Reviewed" and PASSED in TWO WEEKS?!?
I said the changes to the government should be done carefully, thoughtfully, slowly. When Congress works quickly, we end up with the patriot act. Kinda proves that we don't want Congress acting rashly, quickly, and recklessly, doesn't it?
> Note that if the Congress were not being so wimpy, it could pass the same law again with a minor change in wording, and again, and again, and the court's reaction time would leave the law in effect more of the time than not.
Oh, they do. When they're wise, they consider the Constitutional concerns brought up by the court and make a "minor change" that addresses that concern.
Other times, the court is so loathe to confront Congress that they rule that the item is a) a tax, and therefore within the power of Congress, AND b) NOT a tax, and therefore doesn't have to originate in the House.
Other times, they rule that the administration's surveillance program is unconstitutional, yet choose not to issue a order that it be stopped. Because maybe someday Congress will fix it such that it's no longer Constitutional.
On the other hand, the president recently announced that he has the power to unilaterally rewrite immigration law BECAUSE CONGRESS CHOSE NOT TO make the changes he wanted. Seriously, that's the administration's justification- Congress didn't do what we wanted, therefore we have the power to write out own laws. The framers never intended the president to be de facto king.
This is certainly a step in the right direction. Thank you Senator Mike Lee, R-UT.
That's true, somehow my eyes skipped passed the first one. I did, however, copy and paste the full text of the first amendment, so it was included in my post.
I can see why you might say that. On other hand, US Democrats believe that when Democrats design a paper ballot, then the state Democratic party approves that paper ballot, you end up with a paper ballot that democrat voters aren't smart enough to use. There are a lot of errors on those paper ballots, they say. They may well be right . They may have done a terrible job of designing the ballot, their committee who reviewed and approved the ballot may have been incompetent, and their voters may be less than competent as well.
> It's kind of like the Canadian Navy. If you think about it; well sure they would exist.
Technically they exist, and they do serve a role, a role similar in some ways to the US Coast Guard.
Canada's navy operates 1 destroyer, 12 frigates, 4 patrol submarines, 12 coastal defense vessels and 8 unarmed patrol/training vessels. They have about 8,000 sailors.
Each US carrier battle group includes about eight surface warships like those of the RCN, and typically two submarines. Plus a carrier. With 70 planes on it. Each carrier battle group has about 7,500 sailors - roughly the same size as the entire Royal Canadian Navy.
It's good to be close friends with the country who has 10 such carrier groups - Canada doesn't really need much of a navy when they're buddies with the US. That's an an under-appreciated benefit to the US of having a navy roughly as powerful as all other navies combined. Sure, we can defend ourselves materially, but we get just as much benefit from the fact that friendly nations enjoy our protection, and therefore want to be our close allies.
Section 107 specifies four things that should be considered in deciding if the use is fair.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
1) Is the use commercial, or not?
The person posting wasn't making money from it, it was non-commercial in terms of suing the person posting it. I'm not sure if Youtube had ads at the time. In a suit against YouTube in it's current form, it would be commercial use.
2) The nature of the use
It's a very short video of small children, unlike the product sold by the record company. The subject of the video is the kids, the song is somewhat incidental.
3) the amount of the original work used, in proportion to the total.
Only 20 seconds of the song are used.
4) the degree to which the use affects the value of the original work - does it compete with authorized copies?
The video contained 20 seconds of low-quality audio. Approximately nobody would listen to the video instead of buying the song. In other words, no harm no foul.
The video scores quite well on at least three of the four points to be considered fair use. The degree to which it was commercial depends on how YouTube was doing their ads in 2007, and if the label wants to sue Youtube or the person posting it.
Courts may also consider other factors as well to determine fairness, but they must consider the four factors listed above.
Article III says that the courts shall rule as to the facts of a case (did he do the crime or not?) and which law is applicable (is it theft or embezzlement?). No part of the Constitution anywhere says that the courts may change any law, much less change the Constitution itself. The two process for changing the Constitution is in article V, which lists the two ways that it may be done.
In the wheat cases, the SC did essentially claim that they had the power to rewrite the interstate commerce clause, by removing both words "interstate" and "commerce". They have been granted no such power, however. Their power is to decide whether or not a given item is in interstate commerce or not, a decision to regulate an item which is neither in commerce nor moving interstate is illegitimate. The early court itself ruled that it did not have the power to override the plain text of the Constitution: âoeAll laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.â (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.)
The court may have been informed by the words of Thomas Jefferson:
Every law consistent with the Constitution will have been made in pursuance of the powers granted by it. Every usurpation or law repugnant to it cannot have been made in pursuance of its powers. The latter will be nugatory and void.â (Thomas Jefferson)
On this basis, as the Madison court agreed, any decision of the court which purports to change the meaning of the Constitution is thusly null and void, without force of law.