Then there is this: "the iPhone was not a new invention - it was just a much better telephone than any we'd seen before." Hogwash. Sure, we call it a telephone, but it is as different as shouting is from a landline, and it uses a crap-ton of new materials, software, imaging and wireless innovations - many of which did not exist 15 years ago.
He is not a civilian. He is a sworn member of the military. Civilian laws only apply under very limited situations.
He violated his oath. He committed espionage while on active duty.
And while I agree that there has been a slow, dangerous process of reducing our civil liberties, this has nothing to do with the Manning case. It is a red herring that ignores the fact that Manning is a traitor who performed his crimes while a sworn, active member of the military. He is lucky that the military no longer pushes for capital punishment for these cases.
In the US an elementary school has some serious legal powers and obligations as a surrogate parent. The best example of this is that in quite a few states corporal punishment is still permitted in public schools.
Given that reality, I find it humorous that the/. crowd that is always arguing that it is the job of the parent (not the government) to control a child's internet access (a sentiment I agree with), now argues that schools, which are obligated to act as the parent during the school day, should not meet these obligations when it comes to the internet.
They are obligated to stop bullying in the schoolyard, but some here want them to ignore bullying in social media (often done while using school resources, mind you). Apparently the tubez on the interwebz are immune from their responsibilities now?
Those of us who are parents send our kids to school with the knowledge that the school is empowered to act as our agent. This protects our kids. This protection should not stop when kids sit down at a keyboard.
And who would pay such a fee?
I would not pay a fee for services that I had not agreed to, and no court would force me to.
And if you force me to, then it is called a TAX. But we're against taxes, right?
I'm looking over my dead dog Rover
Who I overlooked before
One leg is missing, the other is gone,
A third leg is scattered all over the lawn.
No need explaining, the one leg remaining
Is spinning on the carport floor,
I'm looking over my dead dog Rover
Who I overlooked before.
I do IT consulting for small businesses. There are costs and benefits to both. Basically you need to weigh them as they apply to your business.
IT On Site:
Benefits -
Closer supervision/peace of mind
Able to fix some things that require a physical presence
Costs -
Higher charge for on-site visits
Lost time for anyone who is watching the admin. You are paying double or more, and losing productivity.
Aggravated admin. Nobody likes someone watching over their shoulder.
Fire fighting support depends on unscheduled availability. If you call and the company has no free technicians for 8-12 hours you experience downtime.
Misplaced increased belief that your data is safe
Other issues -
Even if you watch everything done would you recognize malevolent behavior?
Off site:
Benefits -
Lower charge for remote support. Often much lower due to minimum charges for on-site visits.
Quicker response to emergencies
24/7 monitoring. The remote monitoring will notify you and the support company that the server/application is down.
Costs -
Personal supervision/peace of mind lower
Some issues are nearly impossible to fix off-site
I am sure this list can be greatly expanded, as well as customized to your environment. I think the question is a valid question, but I'm pretty sure the answer isn't what the poster hoped for.
It isn't stated explicitly, but it appears that the city used part of the grant already to install the first few cameras.
It isn't that the physical removal will cost money, but that they may have to reimburse the feds for the grant money now that they have opted out of the program.
Also, this is not certain -- which is why it "may" cost thousands.
July 4th, Independence Day, does not celebrate the signing of the constitution, the election of President Washington, the passage of the Bill or Rights, or the first inauguration. It celebrates the Declaration of Independence:
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
God and religion is a part of our heritage. The difference is that it is not the God of Washington, or Kennedy, or Franklin, or Abraham, or Muhammad. It is a recognition of the common belief then and now in a greater being.
Even the agnostics of the day -- and there were several such who signed the Declaration -- approved this wording. Heck, one wrote the damned thing.
Lastly, this is a man giving his deepest oath. For a religious man, swearing to God is much more than saying "I promise." That is fine by me.
It is exactly as I noted. And nowhere in your reference does it refer to riders. The whole purpose of the Authorizations process in Congress is to specify earmarks. It is what Congress does with much of its time. Without earmarks you are giving huge sums to departments with no specifications. With earmarks Congress has its say on how the money is spent.
Congress is directed by the Constitution to provide for the "general welfare". If it believes that fixing Highway 1 is in the general welfare, and is not certain that the Department of Transportation agrees, it writes in an earmark for that project. That is its job.
So what Lessig proposes is to just give every department a sum of money and depend on that department to spend it. I guess if you think that this is a good idea you might oppose earmarks.
Of course, earmarks are the right and obligation of Congress to meet its duty to provide for the general welfare, regardless of the opinions of the President.
In the end, eliminating earmarks is bad for spending, bad for oversight, a violation of the duties of Congress, and maybe unconstitutional.
I typo'd an html code and this line got lopped out above the Authorizations line:
The budget is then divided up in two manners -- appropriations and authorizations. The job of the appropriations committee is to peg a number on the budget. They are not supposed to specify spending details any more than by department or branch
No. Wrong. I'm sorry to be rude, but you really must understand how our government works if you wish to fix it.
Well, having spent five years on the hill as a legislative assistant I'm guessing I know more about how this system works than you do. I had simplified it to make my points.
The budget process does not work the way you suggest. The President's budget is a wish list. No where does the President have authority to present a budget.
The House and Senate pass an overall budget. It has the amount of money to be spent, as well as general guidelines.
Authorizations are done by the committees that cover that part of government -- the Committee on Armed Services authorizes Department of Defense spending, for example. This is where individual programs are approved (authorized) for spending.
In addition, all spending bills originate in the House. This is really more by custom as the Constitution only regulates the origin of taxing bills. However, as much as Senators may argue that they have the right to originate spending bills, they do not really do so.
The main point is that, in the end, it is the Congress who is given the obligation to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare", not the President. It is their job to prioritize spending. That is what earmarks are for. They are where the Congress says "you must spend $5 million fixing this highway". Any money not earmarked is at the discretion of the President.
It should also be noted that the President does not have to spend most of the money being appropriated. He can't spend it on something else, but he doesn't have to spend it at all. (This is in dispute, but in practice this is the current case)
You may not like the fact that Congress designates spending this way, but that is the way it was designed, and it works to balance the power of the President.
Oh, and you were wrong. Just adding that in because you insisted wrongly that you knew better how the system works.
1) not accept contributions from registered lobbyists or PACs
You know, it seems great to make lobbyists and PAC's out to be the bogeyman. You can claim that they have undue influence over legislators. This greatly simplifies a complicated situation. Lobbyists and PACs also are the only ways that the little guy gets attention. With Congressional districts so large the average voter has difficulty making his voice heard, not because of evil congresscritters, but because there are too many of us in each district. So if you want your voice to be heard one way is to donate to a PAC that represents your views -- the AARP, VFW, move on, whatever. There is a PAC with a lobbyist who can make your voice heard. Without this only the richest folks will be able to afford to have their voice heard. I prefer the ability for collective voices to be heard.
2) support the abolition of "earmarks"
This is a terrible idea. If there are no earmarks then only the President has the ability to direct spending. I don't know about you, but this President has seriously lowered my respect for the ability of a President to do this in a fair manner. If the only control over EPA spending is by the President, how many anti-pollution programs will really be funded?
Yes, there should be more transparency to avoid situations like the Bridge to Nowhere, but even that funding was eliminated eventually.
The Congress is not only an equal part of our Government, but it is specifically tasked with the job of managing spending. Eliminating earmarks removes this power. Cutting a blank check for the President is a bad idea.
3) support reform to increase transparency in Congress.
No argument here.
4) support public financing of public elections.
I am ambivalent about this. I think it should be something to opt-in to, as it is in the Presidential campaigns. However, I believe that my giving money to a candidate or a cause is one way for me to promote my views -- it is an act of freedom of speech and expression. I am against infringing on the freedom of speech in any way. This administration has taken away enough of my freedoms without other people helping to take away even more.
I have long thought the House should be larger. It is meant to be representative, but the sheer size of each district now means that entire populations go ignored. Think of a conservative enclave in a Democratic district, or vice versa. For example, the wealthy town of Grosse Point Shores is in a very liberal Detroit district. Do you think their views are taken seriously?
I understand the cost involved - just the buildings alone will be a fortune. But consider how hard it is now for your representative to stay in touch with his or her constituency. The average size of a Congressional district is just below 650,000! That is three times what it was at the turn of the last century. Considering the minimum was set at 30,000, the current sizes are way out of whack compared to the probable intent.
With 650,000 constituents,it really is no surprise how important campaign donations have become. Worried about lobbiests and PAC's? Well, here is the root of the problem. Yours is a voice in the crowd.
Ignoring the general lawmaking powers of Congress that can affect Yahoo (ie. net neutrality), lying to Congress is punishable by prison time.
It isn't that common, but the Capitol actually has a jail cell that could be used. Today, though, the person is referred to the DA who is required to convene a grand jury.
In 1983 an EPA official was sentenced to 6 months in jail, 5 years probation and a $10,000 fine.
Because it has long long been considered to be more profitable for broadcasters to play the songs for free with the thought that listeners would buy the music, attend concerts, get a t-shirt, etc.
So much so that there have been many, many "payola" scandals, including in the past year, where the broadcasters are paid kickbacks (through tickets, cash, gifts) to play particular songs and artists.
The fact that this system would probably work out for the music industry when it comes to internet music is being ignored -- as has long been noted here on slashdot.
It allows IT departments to specifically set aside 1 (or more) days a month on a regular schedule to test the updates before rolling them out to the client computers.
If the updates come out on a random schedule, as done before, you cannot plan ahead for the testing required to ensure the updates don't break functionality.
The amendment says "and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" -- where are the grievances upon which Verizon is petitioning the Government?
Slashdot Mirror
Then there is this: "the iPhone was not a new invention - it was just a much better telephone than any we'd seen before." Hogwash. Sure, we call it a telephone, but it is as different as shouting is from a landline, and it uses a crap-ton of new materials, software, imaging and wireless innovations - many of which did not exist 15 years ago.
He is not a civilian. He is a sworn member of the military. Civilian laws only apply under very limited situations. He violated his oath. He committed espionage while on active duty. And while I agree that there has been a slow, dangerous process of reducing our civil liberties, this has nothing to do with the Manning case. It is a red herring that ignores the fact that Manning is a traitor who performed his crimes while a sworn, active member of the military. He is lucky that the military no longer pushes for capital punishment for these cases.
Found the term I was looking for: in loco parentis
Given that reality, I find it humorous that the /. crowd that is always arguing that it is the job of the parent (not the government) to control a child's internet access (a sentiment I agree with), now argues that schools, which are obligated to act as the parent during the school day, should not meet these obligations when it comes to the internet.
They are obligated to stop bullying in the schoolyard, but some here want them to ignore bullying in social media (often done while using school resources, mind you). Apparently the tubez on the interwebz are immune from their responsibilities now?
Those of us who are parents send our kids to school with the knowledge that the school is empowered to act as our agent. This protects our kids. This protection should not stop when kids sit down at a keyboard.
And who would pay such a fee? I would not pay a fee for services that I had not agreed to, and no court would force me to. And if you force me to, then it is called a TAX. But we're against taxes, right?
My personal Dr D fave
I'm looking over my dead dog Rover
Who I overlooked before
One leg is missing, the other is gone,
A third leg is scattered all over the lawn.
No need explaining, the one leg remaining
Is spinning on the carport floor,
I'm looking over my dead dog Rover
Who I overlooked before.
At least we'll still have the online show.
I do IT consulting for small businesses. There are costs and benefits to both. Basically you need to weigh them as they apply to your business.
IT On Site:
Benefits -
Closer supervision/peace of mind Able to fix some things that require a physical presence
Costs -
Higher charge for on-site visits Lost time for anyone who is watching the admin. You are paying double or more, and losing productivity. Aggravated admin. Nobody likes someone watching over their shoulder. Fire fighting support depends on unscheduled availability. If you call and the company has no free technicians for 8-12 hours you experience downtime. Misplaced increased belief that your data is safe
Other issues -
Even if you watch everything done would you recognize malevolent behavior?
Off site:
Benefits -
Lower charge for remote support. Often much lower due to minimum charges for on-site visits. Quicker response to emergencies 24/7 monitoring. The remote monitoring will notify you and the support company that the server/application is down.
Costs -
Personal supervision/peace of mind lower Some issues are nearly impossible to fix off-site
I am sure this list can be greatly expanded, as well as customized to your environment. I think the question is a valid question, but I'm pretty sure the answer isn't what the poster hoped for.
No, it is illegal for states to *make* paper money, not *take* paper money.
It isn't stated explicitly, but it appears that the city used part of the grant already to install the first few cameras.
It isn't that the physical removal will cost money, but that they may have to reimburse the feds for the grant money now that they have opted out of the program.
Also, this is not certain -- which is why it "may" cost thousands.
July 4th, Independence Day, does not celebrate the signing of the constitution, the election of President Washington, the passage of the Bill or Rights, or the first inauguration. It celebrates the Declaration of Independence:
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
God and religion is a part of our heritage. The difference is that it is not the God of Washington, or Kennedy, or Franklin, or Abraham, or Muhammad. It is a recognition of the common belief then and now in a greater being.
Even the agnostics of the day -- and there were several such who signed the Declaration -- approved this wording. Heck, one wrote the damned thing.
Lastly, this is a man giving his deepest oath. For a religious man, swearing to God is much more than saying "I promise." That is fine by me.
Seems real to me. Here is his guild.
http://www.wowarmory.com/guild-info.xml?r=Aegwynn&n=We+Are+Prepared&p=1
A whole lot of level 61 shaman, just as indicated in the story.
Congress is directed by the Constitution to provide for the "general welfare". If it believes that fixing Highway 1 is in the general welfare, and is not certain that the Department of Transportation agrees, it writes in an earmark for that project. That is its job.
So what Lessig proposes is to just give every department a sum of money and depend on that department to spend it. I guess if you think that this is a good idea you might oppose earmarks.
Of course, earmarks are the right and obligation of Congress to meet its duty to provide for the general welfare, regardless of the opinions of the President.
In the end, eliminating earmarks is bad for spending, bad for oversight, a violation of the duties of Congress, and maybe unconstitutional.
I typo'd an html code and this line got lopped out above the Authorizations line:
The budget is then divided up in two manners -- appropriations and authorizations. The job of the appropriations committee is to peg a number on the budget. They are not supposed to specify spending details any more than by department or branch
Well, having spent five years on the hill as a legislative assistant I'm guessing I know more about how this system works than you do. I had simplified it to make my points.
The budget process does not work the way you suggest. The President's budget is a wish list. No where does the President have authority to present a budget.
The House and Senate pass an overall budget. It has the amount of money to be spent, as well as general guidelines.
Authorizations are done by the committees that cover that part of government -- the Committee on Armed Services authorizes Department of Defense spending, for example. This is where individual programs are approved (authorized) for spending.
In addition, all spending bills originate in the House. This is really more by custom as the Constitution only regulates the origin of taxing bills. However, as much as Senators may argue that they have the right to originate spending bills, they do not really do so.
The main point is that, in the end, it is the Congress who is given the obligation to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare", not the President. It is their job to prioritize spending. That is what earmarks are for. They are where the Congress says "you must spend $5 million fixing this highway". Any money not earmarked is at the discretion of the President.
It should also be noted that the President does not have to spend most of the money being appropriated. He can't spend it on something else, but he doesn't have to spend it at all. (This is in dispute, but in practice this is the current case)
You may not like the fact that Congress designates spending this way, but that is the way it was designed, and it works to balance the power of the President.
Oh, and you were wrong. Just adding that in because you insisted wrongly that you knew better how the system works.
1) not accept contributions from registered lobbyists or PACs
You know, it seems great to make lobbyists and PAC's out to be the bogeyman. You can claim that they have undue influence over legislators. This greatly simplifies a complicated situation. Lobbyists and PACs also are the only ways that the little guy gets attention. With Congressional districts so large the average voter has difficulty making his voice heard, not because of evil congresscritters, but because there are too many of us in each district. So if you want your voice to be heard one way is to donate to a PAC that represents your views -- the AARP, VFW, move on, whatever. There is a PAC with a lobbyist who can make your voice heard. Without this only the richest folks will be able to afford to have their voice heard. I prefer the ability for collective voices to be heard.
2) support the abolition of "earmarks"
This is a terrible idea. If there are no earmarks then only the President has the ability to direct spending. I don't know about you, but this President has seriously lowered my respect for the ability of a President to do this in a fair manner. If the only control over EPA spending is by the President, how many anti-pollution programs will really be funded?
Yes, there should be more transparency to avoid situations like the Bridge to Nowhere, but even that funding was eliminated eventually.
The Congress is not only an equal part of our Government, but it is specifically tasked with the job of managing spending. Eliminating earmarks removes this power. Cutting a blank check for the President is a bad idea.
3) support reform to increase transparency in Congress.
No argument here.
4) support public financing of public elections.
I am ambivalent about this. I think it should be something to opt-in to, as it is in the Presidential campaigns. However, I believe that my giving money to a candidate or a cause is one way for me to promote my views -- it is an act of freedom of speech and expression. I am against infringing on the freedom of speech in any way. This administration has taken away enough of my freedoms without other people helping to take away even more.
This is not directly a style guide, but a Federal (US) usability guide. http://usability.gov/pdfs/guidelines_book.pdf
Hopefully this helps.
I have long thought the House should be larger. It is meant to be representative, but the sheer size of each district now means that entire populations go ignored. Think of a conservative enclave in a Democratic district, or vice versa. For example, the wealthy town of Grosse Point Shores is in a very liberal Detroit district. Do you think their views are taken seriously?
I understand the cost involved - just the buildings alone will be a fortune. But consider how hard it is now for your representative to stay in touch with his or her constituency. The average size of a Congressional district is just below 650,000! That is three times what it was at the turn of the last century. Considering the minimum was set at 30,000, the current sizes are way out of whack compared to the probable intent.
With 650,000 constituents,it really is no surprise how important campaign donations have become. Worried about lobbiests and PAC's? Well, here is the root of the problem. Yours is a voice in the crowd.
It isn't that common, but the Capitol actually has a jail cell that could be used. Today, though, the person is referred to the DA who is required to convene a grand jury.
In 1983 an EPA official was sentenced to 6 months in jail, 5 years probation and a $10,000 fine.
Short history of NY Times articles here.
I'm not just raiding. I'm helping prevent the spread of infectious diseases. Do you really want our children to die of the plague?
100 Feet = 30.48 Meters. Just in case you were wondering.
How is this a technicality? He didn't have a visa to do the work here that he had contracted for.
Because it has long long been considered to be more profitable for broadcasters to play the songs for free with the thought that listeners would buy the music, attend concerts, get a t-shirt, etc.
So much so that there have been many, many "payola" scandals, including in the past year, where the broadcasters are paid kickbacks (through tickets, cash, gifts) to play particular songs and artists.
The fact that this system would probably work out for the music industry when it comes to internet music is being ignored -- as has long been noted here on slashdot.
Digital Stick Your Fair Use Rights Where The Sun Don't Shine Management.
It allows IT departments to specifically set aside 1 (or more) days a month on a regular schedule to test the updates before rolling them out to the client computers.
If the updates come out on a random schedule, as done before, you cannot plan ahead for the testing required to ensure the updates don't break functionality.
Also, an addendum since I cannot edit...
The amendment says "and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" -- where are the grievances upon which Verizon is petitioning the Government?