The French were weakened by WWI, but had rebuilt quite a bit. The German army had taken heavy damage from the invasion of Poland and other battles. Hitler's top military commanders told him they couldn't invade Belgium and France until they had about two years to rebuild their strength. By the numbers, the two sides were roughly matched in the Battle of France:
The French expected a German assault would be much slower, with Belgian resistance giving the French time to prepare before the German army could advance through Belgium to France. In fact, the Luftwaffe were able to defeat Belgium very quickly, so things were not going the way French leaders expected when Germany was suddenly near their border. Since things weren't going according to plan, there was confusion and disorder in the French military in the first few days. Some French commanders and soldiers fought the best they could, without much national leadership.
Rather than taking charge and getting a new plan organized and in action, two days after the Germans attacked French prime minister Paul Reynaud called Winston Churchill and said "we have been defeated". The Germans had barely entered France when Reynaud gave up. Shortly afterward, the French leadership fled the country. After the leadership fled, the individual military units didn't (couldn't?) mount an effective defense acting separately.
The French people as a culture may not necessarily be cowards, but certainly Prime Minister Reynaud and other leaders behaved very cowardly and ineffectively.
In contrast, even after France was in fact occupied by the Nazis, Charles De Gaul refused to give up, urging resistance by individual French people within the occupied territory and organizing units of French people from outside France to join the allies in a campaign to liberate France from the Germans. Had de Gaulle been Prime Minister rather than Reynaud, the history of WW2 might have been very different, and the French might have a very different reputation today.
If they think that Facebook having a near monopoly in social networks, if you think there should be competition between social networks, splitting off WhatsApp isn't a solution.
If you want Facebook to have competition, you might split it into two social network companies, Facebook and Bookface or whatever. You'd have Facebook A and Facebook B competing against each other, with different owners and boards.
Thinking WhatsApp, as a different company is going to be real competition for Facebook - well it makes me wonder if they're getting advice from representative Hank Johnson.
You'll find there have been at least ten legal proceedings against Yelp for this activity, including a class action suit.
I do hope they pay you your $10 for posting that here, though.
No need to try to bother with the "slander" comment. I know they sue journalists and bloggers who mention their business practices. I'm quite immune to suit, though. They are more than welcome to try to sue me. They should be prepared to sue Ken Paxton too, though.
I started reading your links. The first one was a breathless article about a couple of people "connected to Wall Street" in the Trump administration. The first guy they mentioned, the author connected him to Wall Street bases on the fact that in the 1980s he was a VP of a movie studio, Castle Rock entertainment. Seriously? THAT is what you're going to call "Wall Street", someone having a job in the movie industry 30 years ago makes them "Wall Street". The desperation is thick. I quit reading after that ridiculousness.
When you know, or think, that your application has some open source code in it, you use Black Duck to catalog the open source code.
When you wrote an application yourself and know you didn't use open source code, you don't go paying Black Duck to tell you what you already know.
Of course most codebases that people use Black Duck on have open source code - that's what Black Duck is for, listing which parts are OSS. It's like saying "96% of people who called Water Leak Locators had a water leak. Well no shit, you don't hire someone to find the water leak unless you think you have a water leak.
Occasionally, people use Black Duck to show someone else that there isn't OSS code, but normally if you don't have OSS code, you don't need to go looking for what isn't there.
Yeah really strange for Yelp to be complaining about anyone's business practices. Yelp is shady asf. Basically they call up businesses and say "if you don't pay up, we're going to post a bunch of fake reviews and damage your business".
I wish Google would show a lot LESS of Yelp, since Yelp is nothing but paid ads fraudulently marketed as reviews. We're I in charge of Google, I probably wouldn't list Yelp, or would significantly de-rank them as a known fraud.
I do have an idea which might be worthy of a limited trial. My idea certainly isn't perfect, but it might be better than the current cesspool. Might be worth testing it somehow.
The problem, of course, is that whoever pays for a candidates campaign tends to have a lot of influence on what that politician does in office.
Currently, We have several laws around campaign finance transparency, trying to allow everyone to know who is donating to candidates. For example, the list I posted above is from Hillary's FEC filings, showing she's funded mostly by Wall Street. Since we know she's bought and paid for by Wall Street, we can know what to expect. There are lot of loopholes and shenanigans around that - PACs, super PACs, etc. Hillary's 2016 strategy of funneling donations which would otherwise be illegal through state parties looks a lot like fraud, but apparently it was technically legal. So the current system isn't great.
Let's remind ourselves of what the problem is: Whoever pays for a candidates campaign tends to have a lot of influence on what that politician does in office.
How about we try the Constanza approach and do the opposite of what we've been doing, instead of requiring things be disclosed. Instead all donations would be sent to the FEC. Once a month or once a quarter, the FEC would distribute the funds to campaigns, without revealing who the contributors were. The politicians wouldn't KNOW who was funding them, which would make it a lot harder for a politician to be bought and paid for. They'd only know they got $x million in contributions, with no information about who funded their campaigns, and therefore wouldn't owe anyone any favors. Rather than being unlawful to *not* disclose donors' names, it would be unlawful to disclose them, so that as far as the politicians can figure out, they work for "the people", not for certain big donors.
Again, that system wouldn't be perfect. It might be an improvement, though.
No person shall be eligible for elected office who is an assclown, nor any person who previously occupied the White House employed primarily to attack victims of sexual harassment.
That's my proposal for a 28th amendment. It covers Trump and Hillary.
Those are the donors she listed in her FEC filing. You're saying her Federal Election Commission filings reporting those as her donors are Fraudulent Representation, a felony?
Trump is, of course, wholly unqualified to be President. Having stated the obvious about him, let me clear up something that should be pretty obvious about Clinton. Here's who funds Hillary, her top contributors:
Paloma Partners (hedge fund) $21,613,800 Pritzker Group (investment firm) $16,626,207 Renaissance Technologies (hedge fund) $16,543,000 Saban Capital Group (investment firm) $12,283,411 Newsweb Corp (media conglomerate) $11,016,642 Soros Fund Management (investment firm) $10,556,793
> Nor the tax breaks for the ultra rich including Wall Street.
The literally works for the largest Wall Street firms, that's who pays her bills. Ultra-rich? With $29 billion, Pritzkers are one of the wealthiest families in the country. Soros is one of the richest people on Wall Street, with $8 billion. These are the people funding Clinton, the people she works for.
> subject isn't a neutral opinion on the law, it is making law itself. By choosing between what takes priority between different conflicting laws and regulatory mechanisms,
I listed the laws in order. Courts don't get to decide whether to follow an FDA regulation or the statute, the statute controls. This is because the FDA itself, and therefore all of its authority, are created by statute. The FDA cannot possibly have greater authority than statute because it got its power FROM statute.
Similarly, Congress gets its power from the Constitution. An act of Congress cannot logically have more power than the Constitution, cannot be above the Constitution, because Congress's power comes FROM the Constitution. So no, courts don't and can't decide which to follow, the true law is the source law, in the order I listed them above.
Obviously there are times when reasonable people can disagree on whether some statute conflicts with the Constitution. Sometimes even people who have *read* the Constitution and the statute disagree.:) (More often the disagreement is among people who have read neither, and confuse "I wish that" with Constitutionality). In those close calls, yes SCOTUS has the power to hold that some portion of a law conflicts with a a specific section of the Constitution, and Congress will have to fix the law to resolve the conflict.
An very recent example of thag was last week. Congress had passed a law saying states have to outlaw gambling. In effect, Congress had allowed gambling. The court saw that the Constitution says Congress can't order states to do things, so the court "noticed" that the law was unconstitutional. There really wasn't much decision for the court to make, it's written in black and white. The court also noticed that nothing in the Constitution prohibits Congress from regulating gambling directly, they just can't order the states to do it for them. Congress still has the power to make the law, they just need to word it differently in order to not conflict with the plain language of the Constitution.
Indeed not. Some people are interested in orbital mechanics, so they learn about orbital mechanics. Some people are interested in celebrity gossip, so they know about celebrity gossip. Some are disinterested in orbital mechanics, and therefore learn nothing about the topic. We learn about things that interest us, and don't sit studying things we have no interest in. Not having an interest in a topic goes hand and hand with being ignorant about it.
Most people have interests other than economics, so most don't know what the two main branches of economics are. This is answered within the first few pages of any economics textbook, but most people don't care to read economics textbooks - not even chapter 1. That's okay - everyone has their own interests and not everyone wants to be a public policy nerd.
Unfortunately, our system of government has the average voter choosing between proposed economic policies, because we don't want the king deciding for us. It hardly makes sense for economic policy to be decided by people who haven't even read page 1 of Economics 101, but that seems to be the best system we've come up with so far. It leaves the voters, who aren't even interested in studying policy, easily manipulated by politicians like Trump and Clinton, especially career politicians.
I accidentally stumbled upon something that MIGHT be a better system, perhaps. It might be worth some kind of small-scale trial. At one time, I only knew anything about one of our local council members. All the other names on the local ballot were a mystery to me. Two of my friends know the city government quite well, and these friends are intelligent and trustworthy people, so I asked my two friends their opinions of the candidates. My friends knew who at City Hall was super slimy and who was a moron. I wasn't asking them who will agree with my previously decided conclusions on specific policy issues, just which candidates are smart an honest people.
Similarly, in state and federal elections, friends sometimes end up asking me, because I'm the kind of nerd who knows who our state rep is and knows a bit about what he's been up to. Most of my friends wouldn't know the incumbent's name, much less have any idea if they are doing a good job. A couple times after I answer some of their questions friends have straight up asked me "so bottom line, who should I vote for for governor?" I didn't really want to answer that question for them, but I said "knowing you, you might want to look at these two candidates, especially Jones". The weird thing is I don't hesitate to ask my friend Dan what I should do about electrical things, because he's a knowledgeable electrician. I didn't hesitate to call my friend Charlie about how I should handle a plumbing issue. Why shouldn't I be helpful to them when they ask me who the better candidates are, because I'm more into policy and politics and economics than they are?
Instead of having politicians pandering to the lowest common denominator, selling slogans to people who don't know who the current vice president is, what if politicians had to convince the 10% of the population who has some interest and knowledge in public policy? What if you and nine of your buddies selected one of you, the most knowledgeable and trusted, to research the candidates and cast the votes for your group of ten? Instead of voting based on slogans, each person would be directly voting for their friend who is interested in this stuff and knows who their current US senators are, and what they've been up to. Each person would vote for someone they know personally and trust to do a little research and make a reasoned decision. It wouldn't be perfect, but it might be better than the current circus.
As you probably know, the "common" in "common law" refers to the courts trying to all follow the same rules as courts had followed over hundreds of years. If one English court in 1489 decided an issue one way, all future courts have that decision in common.
In the US, the common law has the lowest priority of our many sources of law. So yes, theoretically US courts could make new law, if the topic hadn't already been addressed by any of the following:
The US Constitution Congress via statute The Senate and President, via a treaty A federal regulatory agency (administrative law) The state Constitution A state statute A state regulatory agency Any prior court, including English courts
There are literally millions of pages of law which take precedent over any new common law a modern court could otherwise create. 99.9999% of cases are covered by one of the above. Also, a decision to NOT regulate is a decision by any of the above authorities. So not only the millions of pages of law they have made, but also the million pages they explicitly decided not to make.
In this case, there is a very clear federal statute on the matter. Judges are not empowered to say "I disagree with Congress, so I'm replacing the statute with my own personal opinion instead". A court can treat a federal statue as void only if it contradicts the only higher priority law - the Constitution. Even when two federal statutes seem to conflict the courts do not ignore one, they must apply them such that both have meaning.
In order to have a person be a part of the discussion group TOMORROW, we will need to have consent records that comply with GDPR. In order to be GDPR compliant, there consent (sign up) must come after they've been informed of how to unsubscribe, the fact that you don't sell their email address to marketers, etc.
Here it is in programmatic form:
Are you sending them an email? (No: Goto Ok) Do you have their consent? (No: Goto jail) Is it informed consent? Meaning they saw GDPR disclosures before consenting. (No: Goto jail)
You need "informed consent". It's not sufficient under GDPR to inform them afterwards, "informed consent" under GDPR requires that they have the information BEFORE they sign up. Therefore you don't have GDPR-compliant informed consent from people who signed up prior to changing your site to be GDPR-compliant, including listing things you don't do.
It's not informed consent under GDPR if you didn't give them the GDPR info before they consented. Therefore you can't use their information after GDPR is in effect. Basically they either have to sign up again after receiving the GDPR disclosures, or you have to delete them because you don't have informed consent.
So true, and so sad. Mostly the ones who vote every four years and don't have any idea who is running for Congress, or who their congressman is. All they know is a bumper sticker they saw related to the Presidential race. For many people, who have interests other than and policy and politics their understanding of what economic policy is limited to a dumb slogan.
> supporting the interests of the rich
Yeah, that kind of ignorance, actually falling for it when Hillary (who is quite wealthy) tells them that the only reason people would vote for candidates who follow what the Constitution actually says is to "support the rich".
There are a LOT more elections than the presidential election every four years. Even at the federal level alone, house members are up for election every two years. The general election for most house seats isn't normally close, one particular party has held that seat for 30 years because the party represents values that appeal to voters in that district. The real action is the primaries, where there may be only 12,000 votes cast, mostly by more informed people. A few hundred votes my swing the primary for a house seat. Some of these voters who come out for off-year primaries are very interested in policy. They are interested enough that they can intelligently discuss the pros and cons of different policy proposals, saying something like "the Democrat proposal may (or may not) boost the economy in the short term, at the cost of very significant debt dragging down the economy a few years later. The Republican proposal is more modest. It may not boost the economy as much in the short term, bit doesn't have the $400 billion price tag that the Democrat plan has."
Prove I'm not the best guy ever. Or prove who is. "Best" doesn't mean anything unless you define the criteria. T-Mobile did define the criteria. Any ad that doesn't define the criteria, the word "best" should be ignored as meaningless, and where the criteria is defined consumers should either pay attention to the criteria or ignore the word.
That's a reasonable argument, you just have your facts backwards. In 1925, Congress passed the FAA (arbitration act). In 1935, they passed the NLRA (unions) act. In 2012, seventy-seven years later, the labor relations board decided they were going to start ignoring the Arbitration Act and pretending the NLRA, which didn't even mention arbitration (or class actions), somehow made the Arbitration Act vanish. That's a claim they never tried to make for seventy-seven years.
You make a good point that one should consider "if that's right, or even reasonable, why didn't anyone ever try saying that in the century in which the laws were passed". You're kinda backwards, though, because it's the board's new policy that is new, the board is making a claim that nobody thought even worth trying for 77 years.
As SCOTUS pointed out, Congress could repeal the Arbitration Act. They have not done so. Unlike Supreme Court justices, your house reps are up for re-election every two years, and they live right there in your city, so you can get in touch with them.
That's not quite true. As an example, GDPR requires that before getting consent, you must inform the user whether you will or won't do certain things with the data. Before GDPR, a lot of companies didn't bother saying "we won't..." where it wouldn't even make sense to mention that, of course they don't. Those consents are no longer valid since they didn't comply with irrelevant parts of a law that didn't exist at the time.
Another is that very often when someone subscribes to a mailing list, they get an email telling them how they can unsubscribe, and the bottom of every email sent to the list has an unsubscribe link. People who joined such discussion lists have to be removed because they weren't told how to unsubscribe BEFORE they joined. Telling them after they join doesn't comply with GDPR. If you didn't give them the unsubscribe info BEFORE they signed up, legally they never signed up.
If you work at Starbucks making coffee and your job sucks (redundancy alert), the solution is to finish high school so you can stop making coffee at Starbucks. "Starbucks barista" is never, ever going to be a great career. It doesn't matter how much you whine, petition, legislate, hope for change, or whatever, that job sucks and it always will. Trying to make that a great job is a losing battle. The way to win that game is to use your barista money to eat while you get your OMSCS, then you get a good job.
Some people think you can't even talk about the contract before accepting it, but before I accepted my current job I pointed out a clause in the contract that didn't work for me. I discussed it with my new employer and came up with wording which worked for both of us.
When I was hiring people, I sometimes proactively adjusted the contract to fit their needs. I knew one guy had a local company of his own in his country of origin and that might conflict with the non-compete clause in the standard contract. So I changed it so that clause did not apply to anything in his country. He wasn't allowed to compete with us while working for us, except he could do anything he wanted with customers in Costa Rica.
As he said in the opinion, it's highly debatable of this is good policy, but it's quite clear what the law is. Congress makes law, not unelected, unaccountable judges.
> They have no idea what you'll be doing with the server
Yeah they don't know, maybe whatever you're doing would benefit from having 14 partitions on the drive. They don't do that by default, because 99.999% of the time that would be stupid.
Their default security groups are stupid for 99.999% of users.
> Yes, I have owned a business. It wasn't large, I don't claim that. But I never made a loss, not once.
I owned a couple businesses that never "made a loss" (spent a year investing, growing). It wasn't large. In fact they were tiny. Like you, I don't do that anymore. Mostly because with a very small business, I made less money than I make working for someone else, in a larger business. I don't do run a business now because it's silly to deal with the stress, risk, and volatility of owning a business unless you're going to make a lot more money than you would working 9-5.
If I ever own another business full-time, I'm going to try to quickly grow it to be large enough to triple the income I make from salary. That'll mean investing in getting bigger, showing a loss, at first. If I'm not going to own a business that makes me real money, I may as well just work for Northrup Grumman or something.
Much of what you said is true, but Amazon chooses the defaults. Amazon chose the defaults before the customer even logged in, so Amazon's choice of default settings can't possibly be the customer's responsibility.
If a customer changes a setting, that's almost 100% on the customer (if it's even sane to offer the option, it's clear what the option does, etc.)
I do security for a living, focused on securing AWS instances. I've been doing security for a living for 20 years. So I'm a tad familiar with security concepts. A few nights ago, I was working late because a co-worker couldn't figure out how to do their work and I had to do it for them. I spun up an EC instance and because I was tired I missed changing the default for the security group.
The average time to I infection for a Windows AWS instance exposed to the Internet is MINUTES, and that's Amazon's default - RDP open to the world. Not just to the IP that set it up, not just your country even, but open to everyone. Sure enough within a few minutes someone on Amazon's "known attacker IPs" list owned the machine. Amazon KNOWS those IPs are attackers, they have them in a list, yet by default they give even known attackers access to every new server. That's a bad default, imho.
> discourage hacking targets from coming forward, which is worse for everyone. Imagine if they treated banks like that after a stick-up or heist
That's certainly an issue. Sharing information is important, knowing what kinds of attacks are being done against which kind of targets, etc. Companies like Cisco Talos and Alert Logic are able to better protect customers by proactively taking action to protect customers A and B against the type of attacks currently coming at Company C.
What we're just starting to see is cybersecurity being handled similarly to bank security and fire safety - insurance companies setting standards to avoid having a problem, ahead of time. Insurance companies are really, really good at managing risk, at determining through statistics and other means which safeguards will best reduce risk.
Businesses are penalized (via higher premiums) not afterwards for ending up a victim, but for being sloppy - before anything bad happens. Better protection means lower risk and lower premiums.
Slashdot Mirror
The French were weakened by WWI, but had rebuilt quite a bit. The German army had taken heavy damage from the invasion of Poland and other battles. Hitler's top military commanders told him they couldn't invade Belgium and France until they had about two years to rebuild their strength. By the numbers, the two sides were roughly matched in the Battle of France:
Germany: 141 divisions
7,378 guns
2,445 tanks
5,638 aircraft
3,350,000 troops
Allies: 144 divisions
13,974 guns
3,383â"4,071 French tanks
2,935 aircraft
3,300,000 troops
The French expected a German assault would be much slower, with Belgian resistance giving the French time to prepare before the German army could advance through Belgium to France. In fact, the Luftwaffe were able to defeat Belgium very quickly, so things were not going the way French leaders expected when Germany was suddenly near their border. Since things weren't going according to plan, there was confusion and disorder in the French military in the first few days. Some French commanders and soldiers fought the best they could, without much national leadership.
Rather than taking charge and getting a new plan organized and in action, two days after the Germans attacked French prime minister Paul Reynaud called Winston Churchill and said "we have been defeated". The Germans had barely entered France when Reynaud gave up. Shortly afterward, the French leadership fled the country. After the leadership fled, the individual military units didn't (couldn't?) mount an effective defense acting separately.
The French people as a culture may not necessarily be cowards, but certainly Prime Minister Reynaud and other leaders behaved very cowardly and ineffectively.
In contrast, even after France was in fact occupied by the Nazis, Charles De Gaul refused to give up, urging resistance by individual French people within the occupied territory and organizing units of French people from outside France to join the allies in a campaign to liberate France from the Germans. Had de Gaulle been Prime Minister rather than Reynaud, the history of WW2 might have been very different, and the French might have a very different reputation today.
If they think that Facebook having a near monopoly in social networks, if you think there should be competition between social networks, splitting off WhatsApp isn't a solution.
If you want Facebook to have competition, you might split it into two social network companies, Facebook and Bookface or whatever. You'd have Facebook A and Facebook B competing against each other, with different owners and boards.
Thinking WhatsApp, as a different company is going to be real competition for Facebook - well it makes me wonder if they're getting advice from representative Hank Johnson.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=yelp+prot...
You'll find there have been at least ten legal proceedings against Yelp for this activity, including a class action suit.
I do hope they pay you your $10 for posting that here, though.
No need to try to bother with the "slander" comment. I know they sue journalists and bloggers who mention their business practices. I'm quite immune to suit, though. They are more than welcome to try to sue me. They should be prepared to sue Ken Paxton too, though.
I started reading your links. The first one was a breathless article about a couple of people "connected to Wall Street" in the Trump administration. The first guy they mentioned, the author connected him to Wall Street bases on the fact that in the 1980s he was a VP of a movie studio, Castle Rock entertainment. Seriously? THAT is what you're going to call "Wall Street", someone having a job in the movie industry 30 years ago makes them "Wall Street". The desperation is thick. I quit reading after that ridiculousness.
When you know, or think, that your application has some open source code in it, you use Black Duck to catalog the open source code.
When you wrote an application yourself and know you didn't use open source code, you don't go paying Black Duck to tell you what you already know.
Of course most codebases that people use Black Duck on have open source code - that's what Black Duck is for, listing which parts are OSS. It's like saying "96% of people who called Water Leak Locators had a water leak. Well no shit, you don't hire someone to find the water leak unless you think you have a water leak.
Occasionally, people use Black Duck to show someone else that there isn't OSS code, but normally if you don't have OSS code, you don't need to go looking for what isn't there.
Yeah really strange for Yelp to be complaining about anyone's business practices. Yelp is shady asf. Basically they call up businesses and say "if you don't pay up, we're going to post a bunch of fake reviews and damage your business".
I wish Google would show a lot LESS of Yelp, since Yelp is nothing but paid ads fraudulently marketed as reviews. We're I in charge of Google, I probably wouldn't list Yelp, or would significantly de-rank them as a known fraud.
I do have an idea which might be worthy of a limited trial. My idea certainly isn't perfect, but it might be better than the current cesspool. Might be worth testing it somehow.
The problem, of course, is that whoever pays for a candidates campaign tends to have a lot of influence on what that politician does in office.
Currently, We have several laws around campaign finance transparency, trying to allow everyone to know who is donating to candidates. For example, the list I posted above is from Hillary's FEC filings, showing she's funded mostly by Wall Street. Since we know she's bought and paid for by Wall Street, we can know what to expect. There are lot of loopholes and shenanigans around that - PACs, super PACs, etc. Hillary's 2016 strategy of funneling donations which would otherwise be illegal through state parties looks a lot like fraud, but apparently it was technically legal. So the current system isn't great.
Let's remind ourselves of what the problem is:
Whoever pays for a candidates campaign tends to have a lot of influence on what that politician does in office.
How about we try the Constanza approach and do the opposite of what we've been doing, instead of requiring things be disclosed. Instead all donations would be sent to the FEC. Once a month or once a quarter, the FEC would distribute the funds to campaigns, without revealing who the contributors were. The politicians wouldn't KNOW who was funding them, which would make it a lot harder for a politician to be bought and paid for. They'd only know they got $x million in contributions, with no information about who funded their campaigns, and therefore wouldn't owe anyone any favors. Rather than being unlawful to *not* disclose donors' names, it would be unlawful to disclose them, so that as far as the politicians can figure out, they work for "the people", not for certain big donors.
Again, that system wouldn't be perfect. It might be an improvement, though.
No person shall be eligible for elected office who is an assclown, nor any person who previously occupied the White House employed primarily to attack victims of sexual harassment.
That's my proposal for a 28th amendment. It covers Trump and Hillary.
Those are the donors she listed in her FEC filing.
You're saying her Federal Election Commission filings reporting those as her donors are Fraudulent Representation, a felony?
Trump is, of course, wholly unqualified to be President.
Having stated the obvious about him, let me clear up something that should be pretty obvious about Clinton. Here's who funds Hillary, her top contributors:
Paloma Partners (hedge fund) $21,613,800
Pritzker Group (investment firm) $16,626,207
Renaissance Technologies (hedge fund) $16,543,000
Saban Capital Group (investment firm) $12,283,411
Newsweb Corp (media conglomerate) $11,016,642
Soros Fund Management (investment firm) $10,556,793
https://www.opensecrets.org/pr...
> Nor the tax breaks for the ultra rich including Wall Street.
The literally works for the largest Wall Street firms, that's who pays her bills. Ultra-rich? With $29 billion, Pritzkers are one of the wealthiest families in the country. Soros is one of the richest people on Wall Street, with $8 billion. These are the people funding Clinton, the people she works for.
> subject isn't a neutral opinion on the law, it is making law itself. By choosing between what takes priority between different conflicting laws and regulatory mechanisms,
I listed the laws in order. Courts don't get to decide whether to follow an FDA regulation or the statute, the statute controls. This is because the FDA itself, and therefore all of its authority, are created by statute. The FDA cannot possibly have greater authority than statute because it got its power FROM statute.
Similarly, Congress gets its power from the Constitution.
An act of Congress cannot logically have more power than the Constitution, cannot be above the Constitution, because Congress's power comes FROM the Constitution. So no, courts don't and can't decide which to follow, the true law is the source law, in the order I listed them above.
Obviously there are times when reasonable people can disagree on whether some statute conflicts with the Constitution. Sometimes even people who have *read* the Constitution and the statute disagree. :)
(More often the disagreement is among people who have read neither, and confuse "I wish that" with Constitutionality). In those close calls, yes SCOTUS has the power to hold that some portion of a law conflicts with a a specific section of the Constitution, and Congress will have to fix the law to resolve the conflict.
An very recent example of thag was last week. Congress had passed a law saying states have to outlaw gambling. In effect, Congress had allowed gambling. The court saw that the Constitution says Congress can't order states to do things, so the court "noticed" that the law was unconstitutional. There really wasn't much decision for the court to make, it's written in black and white. The court also noticed that nothing in the Constitution prohibits Congress from regulating gambling directly, they just can't order the states to do it for them. Congress still has the power to make the law, they just need to word it differently in order to not conflict with the plain language of the Constitution.
> You're confusing ignorance with disinterested.
Indeed not. Some people are interested in orbital mechanics, so they learn about orbital mechanics. Some people are interested in celebrity gossip, so they know about celebrity gossip. Some are disinterested in orbital mechanics, and therefore learn nothing about the topic. We learn about things that interest us, and don't sit studying things we have no interest in. Not having an interest in a topic goes hand and hand with being ignorant about it.
Most people have interests other than economics, so most don't know what the two main branches of economics are. This is answered within the first few pages of any economics textbook, but most people don't care to read economics textbooks - not even chapter 1. That's okay - everyone has their own interests and not everyone wants to be a public policy nerd.
Unfortunately, our system of government has the average voter choosing between proposed economic policies, because we don't want the king deciding for us. It hardly makes sense for economic policy to be decided by people who haven't even read page 1 of Economics 101, but that seems to be the best system we've come up with so far. It leaves the voters, who aren't even interested in studying policy, easily manipulated by politicians like Trump and Clinton, especially career politicians.
I accidentally stumbled upon something that MIGHT be a better system, perhaps. It might be worth some kind of small-scale trial. At one time, I only knew anything about one of our local council members. All the other names on the local ballot were a mystery to me. Two of my friends know the city government quite well, and these friends are intelligent and trustworthy people, so I asked my two friends their opinions of the candidates. My friends knew who at City Hall was super slimy and who was a moron. I wasn't asking them who will agree with my previously decided conclusions on specific policy issues, just which candidates are smart an honest people.
Similarly, in state and federal elections, friends sometimes end up asking me, because I'm the kind of nerd who knows who our state rep is and knows a bit about what he's been up to. Most of my friends wouldn't know the incumbent's name, much less have any idea if they are doing a good job. A couple times after I answer some of their questions friends have straight up asked me "so bottom line, who should I vote for for governor?" I didn't really want to answer that question for them, but I said "knowing you, you might want to look at these two candidates, especially Jones". The weird thing is I don't hesitate to ask my friend Dan what I should do about electrical things, because he's a knowledgeable electrician. I didn't hesitate to call my friend Charlie about how I should handle a plumbing issue. Why shouldn't I be helpful to them when they ask me who the better candidates are, because I'm more into policy and politics and economics than they are?
Instead of having politicians pandering to the lowest common denominator, selling slogans to people who don't know who the current vice president is, what if politicians had to convince the 10% of the population who has some interest and knowledge in public policy? What if you and nine of your buddies selected one of you, the most knowledgeable and trusted, to research the candidates and cast the votes for your group of ten? Instead of voting based on slogans, each person would be directly voting for their friend who is interested in this stuff and knows who their current US senators are, and what they've been up to. Each person would vote for someone they know personally and trust to do a little research and make a reasoned decision. It wouldn't be perfect, but it might be better than the current circus.
As you probably know, the "common" in "common law" refers to the courts trying to all follow the same rules as courts had followed over hundreds of years. If one English court in 1489 decided an issue one way, all future courts have that decision in common.
In the US, the common law has the lowest priority of our many sources of law. So yes, theoretically US courts could make new law, if the topic hadn't already been addressed by any of the following:
The US Constitution
Congress via statute
The Senate and President, via a treaty
A federal regulatory agency (administrative law)
The state Constitution
A state statute
A state regulatory agency
Any prior court, including English courts
There are literally millions of pages of law which take precedent over any new common law a modern court could otherwise create. 99.9999% of cases are covered by one of the above. Also, a decision to NOT regulate is a decision by any of the above authorities. So not only the millions of pages of law they have made, but also the million pages they explicitly decided not to make.
In this case, there is a very clear federal statute on the matter. Judges are not empowered to say "I disagree with Congress, so I'm replacing the statute with my own personal opinion instead". A court can treat a federal statue as void only if it contradicts the only higher priority
law - the Constitution. Even when two federal statutes seem to conflict the courts do not ignore one, they must apply them such that both have meaning.
In order to have a person be a part of the discussion group TOMORROW, we will need to have consent records that comply with GDPR. In order to be GDPR compliant, there consent (sign up) must come after they've been informed of how to unsubscribe, the fact that you don't sell their email address to marketers, etc.
Here it is in programmatic form:
Are you sending them an email? (No: Goto Ok)
Do you have their consent? (No: Goto jail)
Is it informed consent? Meaning they saw GDPR disclosures before consenting. (No: Goto jail)
You need "informed consent". It's not sufficient under GDPR to inform them afterwards, "informed consent" under GDPR requires that they have the information BEFORE they sign up. Therefore you don't have GDPR-compliant informed consent from people who signed up prior to changing your site to be GDPR-compliant, including listing things you don't do.
It's not informed consent under GDPR if you didn't give them the GDPR info before they consented. Therefore you can't use their information after GDPR is in effect. Basically they either have to sign up again after receiving the GDPR disclosures, or you have to delete them because you don't have informed consent.
> most American voters are ignorant
So true, and so sad. Mostly the ones who vote every four years and don't have any idea who is running for Congress, or who their congressman is. All they know is a bumper sticker they saw related to the Presidential race. For many people, who have interests other than and policy and politics their understanding of what economic policy is limited to a dumb slogan.
> supporting the interests of the rich
Yeah, that kind of ignorance, actually falling for it when Hillary (who is quite wealthy) tells them that the only reason people would vote for candidates who follow what the Constitution actually says is to "support the rich".
There are a LOT more elections than the presidential election every four years. Even at the federal level alone, house members are up for election every two years. The general election for most house seats isn't normally close, one particular party has held that seat for 30 years because the party represents values that appeal to voters in that district. The real action is the primaries, where there may be only 12,000 votes cast, mostly by more informed people. A few hundred votes my swing the primary for a house seat. Some of these voters who come out for off-year primaries are very interested in policy. They are interested enough that they can intelligently discuss the pros and cons of different policy proposals, saying something like "the Democrat proposal may (or may not) boost the economy in the short term, at the cost of very significant debt dragging down the economy a few years later. The Republican proposal is more modest. It may not boost the economy as much in the short term, bit doesn't have the $400 billion price tag that the Democrat plan has."
Prove I'm not the best guy ever. Or prove who is.
"Best" doesn't mean anything unless you define the criteria. T-Mobile did define the criteria. Any ad that doesn't define the criteria, the word "best" should be ignored as meaningless, and where the criteria is defined consumers should either pay attention to the criteria or ignore the word.
That's a reasonable argument, you just have your facts backwards. In 1925, Congress passed the FAA (arbitration act). In 1935, they passed the NLRA (unions) act. In 2012, seventy-seven years later, the labor relations board decided they were going to start ignoring the Arbitration Act and pretending the NLRA, which didn't even mention arbitration (or class actions), somehow made the Arbitration Act vanish. That's a claim they never tried to make for seventy-seven years.
You make a good point that one should consider "if that's right, or even reasonable, why didn't anyone ever try saying that in the century in which the laws were passed". You're kinda backwards, though, because it's the board's new policy that is new, the board is making a claim that nobody thought even worth trying for 77 years.
As SCOTUS pointed out, Congress could repeal the Arbitration Act. They have not done so. Unlike Supreme Court justices, your house reps are up for re-election every two years, and they live right there in your city, so you can get in touch with them.
That's not quite true. As an example, GDPR requires that before getting consent, you must inform the user whether you will or won't do certain things with the data. Before GDPR, a lot of companies didn't bother saying "we won't ..." where it wouldn't even make sense to mention that, of course they don't. Those consents are no longer valid since they didn't comply with irrelevant parts of a law that didn't exist at the time.
Another is that very often when someone subscribes to a mailing list, they get an email telling them how they can unsubscribe, and the bottom of every email sent to the list has an unsubscribe link. People who joined such discussion lists have to be removed because they weren't told how to unsubscribe BEFORE they joined. Telling them after they join doesn't comply with GDPR. If you didn't give them the unsubscribe info BEFORE they signed up, legally they never signed up.
If you work at Starbucks making coffee and your job sucks (redundancy alert), the solution is to finish high school so you can stop making coffee at Starbucks. "Starbucks barista" is never, ever going to be a great career. It doesn't matter how much you whine, petition, legislate, hope for change, or whatever, that job sucks and it always will. Trying to make that a great job is a losing battle. The way to win that game is to use your barista money to eat while you get your OMSCS, then you get a good job.
Some people think you can't even talk about the contract before accepting it, but before I accepted my current job I pointed out a clause in the contract that didn't work for me. I discussed it with my new employer and came up with wording which worked for both of us.
When I was hiring people, I sometimes proactively adjusted the contract to fit their needs. I knew one guy had a local company of his own in his country of origin and that might conflict with the non-compete clause in the standard contract. So I changed it so that clause did not apply to anything in his country. He wasn't allowed to compete with us while working for us, except he could do anything he wanted with customers in Costa Rica.
As he said in the opinion, it's highly debatable of this is good policy, but it's quite clear what the law is. Congress makes law, not unelected, unaccountable judges.
> They have no idea what you'll be doing with the server
Yeah they don't know, maybe whatever you're doing would benefit from having 14 partitions on the drive. They don't do that by default, because 99.999% of the time that would be stupid.
Their default security groups are stupid for 99.999% of users.
> Yes, I have owned a business. It wasn't large, I don't claim that. But I never made a loss, not once.
I owned a couple businesses that never "made a loss" (spent a year investing, growing). It wasn't large. In fact they were tiny. Like you, I don't do that anymore. Mostly because with a very small business, I made less money than I make working for someone else, in a larger business. I don't do run a business now because it's silly to deal with the stress, risk, and volatility of owning a business unless you're going to make a lot more money than you would working 9-5.
If I ever own another business full-time, I'm going to try to quickly grow it to be large enough to triple the income I make from salary. That'll mean investing in getting bigger, showing a loss, at first. If I'm not going to own a business that makes me real money, I may as well just work for Northrup Grumman or something.
Much of what you said is true, but Amazon chooses the defaults. Amazon chose the defaults before the customer even logged in, so Amazon's choice of default settings can't possibly be the customer's responsibility.
If a customer changes a setting, that's almost 100% on the customer (if it's even sane to offer the option, it's clear what the option does, etc.)
I do security for a living, focused on securing AWS instances. I've been doing security for a living for 20 years. So I'm a tad familiar with security concepts. A few nights ago, I was working late because a co-worker couldn't figure out how to do their work and I had to do it for them. I spun up an EC instance and because I was tired I missed changing the default for the security group.
The average time to I infection for a Windows AWS instance exposed to the Internet is MINUTES, and that's Amazon's default - RDP open to the world. Not just to the IP that set it up, not just your country even, but open to everyone. Sure enough within a few minutes someone on Amazon's "known attacker IPs" list owned the machine. Amazon KNOWS those IPs are attackers, they have them in a list, yet by default they give even known attackers access to every new server. That's a bad default, imho.
> discourage hacking targets from coming forward, which is worse for everyone. Imagine if they treated banks like that after a stick-up or heist
That's certainly an issue. Sharing information is important, knowing what kinds of attacks are being done against which kind of targets, etc. Companies like Cisco Talos and Alert Logic are able to better protect customers by proactively taking action to protect customers A and B against the type of attacks currently coming at Company C.
What we're just starting to see is cybersecurity being handled similarly to bank security and fire safety - insurance companies setting standards to avoid having a problem, ahead of time. Insurance companies are really, really good at managing risk, at determining through statistics and other means which safeguards will best reduce risk.
Businesses are penalized (via higher premiums) not afterwards for ending up a victim, but for being sloppy - before anything bad happens. Better protection means lower risk and lower premiums.