Taxation in general is an inefficient allocation of resources with significant deadweight losses.
That's a load of Republican propaganda (i.e. bullshit). Taxes build the infrastructure (roads, schools, firehouses) that allow the markets to exist.
Actually, it's simple economics. There are things that the government provides that represent the collective desires of the people; however tehre are many thing sthat are simply transfers of money with the attendent deadweight loss.
For example, politicians like to proclaim that they've created jobs when they open a new government facility in a town when all they're doing is transferring someone else's tax money to another location to pay for those wages and the building plus the cost of government administration of the funds; in othe rcases they simply use tax money to subsidize companies - at the expense of other, non-subsidized firms.
In economics, you need to ask "Who else is impacted" to assess the results of policy. To use an old example, if someone throws a rock through your window the money you spent helps the glazer but hurts whoever else you would have bought a product from with the money.
While there certainly are things a government does (and need to be funded with taxes) that are necessary (and teh reason people form governments)the notion that government can efficiently provide many services and fund them through taxes is simply wrong.
It's because of people like you that the US has no universal health care and most students spend half their lives paying of their loans. Taxation in general is an inefficient allocation of resources with significant deadweight losses.
That is why you should sit at the wing if you have flight sickness. Center of Gravity.
Actually it the CP that's of interest,with Dutch Roll (caused by the forces acting on an a/c tail) is more noticeable in the aft section; if you're prone to motion sickness that may be a place to avoid.
personally, I'll take a F/C upgrade any day - at least if I die in a crash it'll be with some bourbon in hand...
Attracting subscribers can put a start-up deep into the red. Vonage added 166,000 subscribers in the first quarter of 2007, but lost $77 million."
I'm not surprised - Vonage gave me $200 to sign up (CC Giftcard)for a year at $14.95/month; netting them $80 (assuming they paid full price for the CC card and don't kickback anything to CC for the signup)for the year. I was nice, I didn't take their free PAP I simply canceled my existing Vonage service and activated the new number on my existing PAP. Strange way to run a railroad; but I'll take the cash, thanks.
The upside is I like their service - it works great from Europe so I avoid expensive calls; to Europe it is a wash at the basic level but if you call a lot it is cheaper with the unlimited calling.
There are other solutions now, but when I first signed up they were the only plug and play solution.
Yeah, it's not like the people who get rich in China are actually very comfortable part of the system, they want to go and overthrow the government at the first sign that they get a bit of money. I mean who wouldn't want to overthrow the very system that made you rich, been part of the 5% of the population with the connections to make things happen in China. Of course having "democracy" & "freedom" is better than maintaining the hegemony that has produced all the wealth for the top 5% of the population.
You'll notice I did not say the rich will want to overthrow the system, I said they will want to change how it deals with them. I think we are already seeing the central government losing its grip on internal policies - and local authorities wielding more power - witness the issue with immigration into Shanghai as an example.
Economic power ultimately translates into political power.
his whole middle-class revolution is pure bs from people who do not understand China. Throughout Chinese history, counting on about close to 20 revolutions/dynasty changes, it has ALWAYS been the peasants that have revolted, never the middle class. The idea that the people who have made the most out of the current political and economic systems are going to be the ones to topple it is as ridiculous as thinking that iraqis would welcome an American "liberator".
Which was my second point - as the poorer part of the population sees them getting less and less they will be the ones who start to revolt; resulting in more transfer of power from the central government to regions and possibly a breakup in what is currently China.
This may have been very true 10-15 years ago, but certainly not now. In fact, millions of Taiwanese (including 5 from my own family) have moved to the mainland to live and work permanently. It's the mainlanders who are the ruthless capitalist running dogs these days.
Which is the biggest threat to the leadership's control - as more people get money they start to want to do things with it; and get ideas about how the government should deal with them, as opposed to how the government wants to deal with them. Then, those that haven't enjoyed the economic boon start wanting a piece as well while those that have start getting less willing to see more of their money go to the government to be redistributed.
The Chinese leadership may think they can pull off keeping themselves in power and free up the economy; but given the size and divergent cultures within China I doubt they can pull it off.
how quiet will this boat be submerged? SSBN's are the chickens of the sea - they run away from the slightest noise in order to stay undetected; the attack boats like to trail them in order to kill them if needed. Unless these new ones are extra quiet they'll be less a strategic threat than a symbol of power. They could, for example, be used to try to forestall a US response to move against the Republic of China, depending how credible the US viewed such a threat. For China, it means they've added a new threat to many of their neighbors - it could get a bit busy with Russian, Taiwanese, and Japanese subs and ASW forces looking to track them.
That said, I'd love to be on the first boat to track one...
People should not have to worry about tricks like this. It should be (and probably is) illegal. It should be easily punished. Unfortunately, I'm so jaded that I truly believe no one will get so much as a slap on the wrist over this.
I'm guessing, in the US at least, if they setup the site properly there would be nothing illegal about it. They could host "pirated" movies that the copyright owners gave them permission to use in this fashion; the EULA could specify that they are are allowed to search your machine for files and report back what is found and use the information in any manner they pleased.
Of course, I would also guess a defendant would get little sympathy for the "I was tricked" defense.
I think it's an important question and one that needs answering if the United States is going to replace their broken healthcare system. My answer is simply that even ignoring the people who don't work, it is still a better deal for you if you have socialised health care.
Free market economies work best when prices are elastic; that is, where changes in price affect the demand for the product. This allows price to signal the level of available supply and prevent shortages of goods. The problem with healthcare is that it is not elastic. If I have cancer, a broken leg or some other ailment I have to get it fixed - regardless of the cost.
The problem is not that some people will get more in benefits than what they pay into the system; it's that such systems will requiring rationing care. Emergencies will get priority treatment, and everything else will get "as available" treatment; you've replaced one type of rationing with another.
In addition, government control of health care means they control salaries as well, which would tend to reduce the supply of providers as people decide to enter fields with better pay; further worsening the availability of care.
Then there is the whole how do I verify eligibility so non-citizens or residents don't get free health care issue.
Socialised health care is not evil communism, it is a practical solution to the health care of your nation. I don't see anybody complaining about the socialised road, garabage collection, fire, police
Actually, we have a mix of public and private providers of those services, since government can't or won't provide the levels of service people want.
and military. When you trust the security of your nation to the government, why do you not trust your healthcare to them too?
Primarily because I don't want politicians and bureaucrats deciding what health care options are the best for me. I would not mind a system where government funded a minimum set of services (at public clinics) and offered catastrophic coverage (like flood insurance)and let private companies decide what benefits to offer, thereby maximizing my choices.
Went to ATT store on teh 30th - about 20 people milling around, I'd guess 15 or so were there for iPhones. Three on display - once someone shooed three kids away (10 - 14 yo; they were playing with the phones) the rest of us got to check them out.
Pretty neat interface, really nice screen, great form factor. A bit hard to type on the on screen keyboard, but then I'm used to Treo.
My name is called - said I wanted to ask some questions. The lady said she was the expert there - so I asked about synching via exchange active synch. Blank stare. I asked about tethering as a modem - assured it can be done, costs an additional $60 per month.
I like the phone, but until it uses Exchange AS to synch with corporate email and can be used as a modem it's not that useful for me. My guess is Apple and ATT are milking the early adopters by getting full margins on the phone, in a year or so we'll see $100 iPhones with real corporate connectivity. I hope the current price points aren't loss leader pricing; if Apple can't make decent money on each phone it is in trouble.
Ideally, the European ones will not be SIM locked and have removable SIMS o I can buy one there and use it here in the US, but I'm guessing Apple will replicate the locked phone model in Europe as well; given their insistence on doing things there way despite what the rest of the market is doing.
Different distributors, I think you meant. I don't think the SCOTUS will have anything to say about this at all - after all, vendors already offer different pricing to different distributors based on stuff such as quantity ordered. The mom & pop stores will still have to sell at a higher price, if for no other reason that they won't be able to get the volume pricing a larger merchant will.
Yes, I did mean distributors. My error.
Minimum pricing would not impact what a seller pays for the item; it establishes a selling price. Therefore, even though company A may pay less for an item than the M&P on the corner, they can't sell it for less than the minimum price and undercut the M&P. They may make more profit per item; but the consumer is looking at their price, not the seller's profit. If the M&P wants a higher margin then they can price their item higher than the minimum; which is no different than today.
WWhere manufacturers and distributors will run into problems, IMHO, is if they don't establish a single minimum price for all sellers; if they don't then they are favoring some sellers by restraining other ones from competing on price.
I doubt this is as big a threat as some make out to discounting; all it means is sellers will need to be more creative. We already see "Why can't I show the price" buttons on internet sites; we'll just see more of that and special rebates. If manufacturers try to stop that they may find themselevs in violation of the Sherman Act; the SCOTUS didn't say minimum pricing was legal; they said it was not automatically a violation. My guess is manufacturers of luxury goods will impose this pricing structure to maintain the cache - no one wnats to buy a $400 purse and then see it sell for $100 and everyone owning one; more competitive products such as computers will see less of it because sellers with minimum pricing would be at a disadvantage to those without one; unless, like Apple, they have a unique product and are willing to be a niche player.
Even ignoring that, though, the Wal-Mart chains of the world, however, who have huge buying power, will still be able to do what they do now: say "You don't like it, fine. We're not carrying your product." Most manufacturers can't cope with the sudden drop of revenue when this occurs, and basically keel over and die. Thus, Wal-Mart is pretty much insulated from strong-arm tactics by nearly all manufacturers.
The people this will hurt most, contrary to the opinion of five SCOTUS justices, are the mom and pop shops. Now, the manufacturers will be able to tell those stores that they have to meet a minimum price while other manufacturers of similar products are still caving to Wal-Mart's price demands. The result will be that the disparity between Wal-Mart prices and prices at smaller stores will increase, driving those smaller stores even more quickly out of business.
There is simply no way to not see this as a serious blow to consumers.
Actually, there are.
First off all, tis can strengthen the Mom and Pop operations, because the big guys will no longer be able to undercut them since everyone will have a price floor; and I think courts, even the current SCOTUS, would view setting different minimum prices for different manufacturers as an anti-trust violation. That means a consumer can shop at a local small store, where service should be better, and not worry about price shopping. For consumers that value service they will have more choice based on service.
OTOH, I doubt it will have much impact on prices of anything but high end exclusive products. Companies can simply advertise and sell at the minimum, and offer their own instant rebates to reduce prices.
Of course, Congress or states could overturn the SCOTUS decision by writing a law taht makes minimum pricing deals illegal.
The activites of foriegn security services in the US is of interest, but when they are directed against private companies that should be including the cost of protecting their trade secrets into their business model, why would we use counter intelligence assests to help them?
Yes it does, because:
1) trade secrets can involve nations developing or refining existing capabilities; which has political ramifications so policy makers need to understand what capabilities other nations are seeking or developing;
2) intelligence operatives eek to gather a wide array of information, which could be used to carry out attacks against the US or its interests; since you cannot say with any certainty what the targets of such operatives may be it makes sense to keep as broad a spectrum of the population informed as possible so that you can thwart such attempts.
I don't think this is a market distortion but a rational attempt by government to protect its citizens.
As for market distortions we should avoid them but there are much bigger targets such as subsidies for various industries (ethanol, solar power, agriculture, etc.)that serve no purpose other than to maintain marginal producers in business.
I think you missed the point - the article was a sensational misstatement of what the FBI was doing and asking. Here is what the guidelines actually say, as opposed to what was stated in the article:
The fact that an individual exhibits one or more of these indicators does not automatically mean that he or she is engaged in espionage. However, based upon the situation, such factors can be cause for concern and might merit further investigation to determine whether espionage is a possibility.
We should report observations of one or more of the following indicators pertaining to a person with access to classified information: Unexplained affluence Failing to report overseas travel Showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope. Keeping unusual work hours. Taking classified material home. Unreported or concealed contacts with foreign nationals Unreported contact with foreign government, military, or intelligence officials. Attempting to gain new accesses without the need to know.
The key points are:
1 - exhibiting those behaviors do not mean someone is a spy; and 2 - they apply to people with access to classified information.
To your argument - "I'm a working academic, and the only point I don't score is unexplained affluence. To be successful in academia you need contacts, collaborations with other (gasp, foreign) groups, and branching out is often a good thing. Showing interest in colleagues work is as likely to be a sign that you've connected some pieces that the rest of us haven't. Maybe it'll be the next-cure-for-cancer, maybe it'll be a daft idea that goes nowhere." - point 2 is important because people with clearances and access are continually informed they are required to report foreign travel, contacts with foreign nationals (though generally only those that appear to be unduly interested in their work; not every contact at say a professional seminar), not to violate classified material handling rules, etc.
If you aren't involved in classified work then the indicators are not applicable to you; unless of course you've been taking classified material home and showing an unusual interest in someone's classified work. I doubt, despite your stating that you have done those things, that they are are normal activities of a successful working academic or that you really are taking classified material home and showing an unusual interest in someone's classified work.
"The point is, the listed indicators of espionage are also indicators of a successful researcher doing there job."
Actually, as I pointed out the indicators in the guidelines aren't activities of a successful researcher; although the inaccurate statements in the article may be - which is why context is important when apply the guidelines. It's the context that makes them useful; a researcher not involved in classified work exhibiting those behaviors mentioned in the article is of no interest and not doing anything unusual. One working on classified projects that is doing what you mention - "... contacts, collaborations with other (gasp, foreign) groups, and branching out is often a good thing. Showing interest in colleagues work..." isn't either as long as they follow reporting rules; which are designed to help identify and counteract potential recruitment efforts by foreign intelligence agencies.
"It's a bit like saying terrorists eat bread, lets investigate everybody who eats bread. It's probably true, it's just not very useful"
Didn't you notice the part that said: "...based upon the situation, such factors can be cause for concern and might merit further investigation to determine whether espionage is a possibility."
It's a pattern of behaviors, that have been tied to espionage, in specific situations that are cause for concern. Even then, nowhere does it say "...lets investigate everybody [who exhibits those behaviors]..." as you claim.
Since when is having a bit of cash ("Unexplained affluence") a suspicious activity? Since when is failign to bore people with every detail of your vacation ("failing to report overseas travel,") a suspicious activity? Since when is curiosity ("showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope") a suspicious activity? Since when is working a night job ("keeping unusual work hours") a suspicious activity? etc. etc.
It isn't, unless you hold a security clearance and are working on sensitive projects; then you must report foreign travel and those other things are simply things to be aware of - as was pointed out in the guideline the article linked which were designed for organizations working on sensitive or classified projects.
The FBI is concerned that University researchers may not be aware of potential espionage threats and would like them to be aware of the threat and how to recognize *potential* attempts at espionage and what to do if they become suspicious.
In the long run, however, we are selling our souls, our technology, and our futures to a country -- a Communist country -- that openly considers the USA an enemy and is actively looking for ways to bury us. I think they found it and our weakness - it's greed.
Don'y worry, that's their's as well; and will cause them great political and social problems, perhaps even civil war. They're rapidly building a two tier society of have and have nots; eventually there simply won't be enough to go around to keep the military happy and the majority of the population that is not benefiting from industrialization compliant. Look at Sanghai and it's illegal immigration problem - they can't keep people out and need the cheap labor - because the Shangaianese won't do the jobs they thing are below them (sound familiar).
They may think they can get away with become a technological power without the corrupting influence of wealth but they are wrong As they become wealthier there cost advantage will disappear and shift to other developing nations, more people will demand prosperity, the younger generation will refuse to sacrifice for the common good, and leaders will arise who will oppose the central government; perhaps some of the very ones you talk about who are here today and eventually return.
What's puzzling about this is that it's totally out of touch with reality. The USSR was interested in American R&D, but that's because they had an industrial base and weapons plants that could use R&D. No enemy of the US today has anything like that.
Except tha a lot of espionage is done by our friends; whether it be against government agencies (such as Israel in the Pollard case) or private companises (such as the French do as explained by a retired head of one of their intelligence services -
'This espionage activity is an essential way for France to keep abreast of international commerce and technology. Of course, it was directed against the United States as well as others. You must remember that while we are allies in defense matters, we are also economic competitors in the world.'" (Reference - http://www.hanford.gov/oci/maindocs/ci_r_docs/fren chesp.pdf)
Like it or not there are many countries that spy on us.
What freedom is taken away by the FBI asking people to watch out for certain behaviors
Nothing.
IF the behaviours are not unreasonable vague.
The list of behaviours mentioned here IS unreasonably vague.
Actually, they aren't because the FBI is looking for patterns of behaviour that may indicate someone is an espionage agent; any one is not really that odd or troubling but a set of them, over time, *may* warrant further investigation.
The list is the result of post-mortums of espionage cases to look for potential warning signs.
Like it or not, commercial espionage is a very serious issue; despite what movies and TV shows say, espionage by "friendly" countries goes on every day. They're not worried about military secrets; rather they want industrial ones that can help their own companies; so ensuring US universities are sensitive to indicators of espionage, just as commercial firms should be aware of the potential as well.
Despite the headline, the FBI is not asking universities to restrict anyone's freedom, all it is saying is "We will be glad to brief your staff on what to be aware of to help identify *indicators* of espionage, and ask that you tell us so we can investigate as appropriate."
The article states:
"US university students will not be able to work late at the campus, travel abroad, show interest in their colleagues' work, have friends outside the United States, engage in independent research, or make extra money without the prior consent of the authorities"
and provides a link to the guidelines that purport to do that. However, if the original author ever bothered to RTFG, they'd notice that the guidelines were simply that - a set of things to watch for that *may* indicate espionage; and don't ask anyone to restrict anyone's ability to "work late at the campus, travel abroad, show interest in their colleagues' work, have friends outside the United States, engage in independent research, or make extra money without the prior consent of the authorities"
Anyone who has had a US security clearance has received a similar brief on an annual basis; the idea is simply co-workers, who are in close contact with each other, are the best first line defense against espionage and should be aware of the warning signs.\\Of course, the truth is often not as newsworthy as some sensational spin.
if so, why don't we seen businesses demanding open standards used when they make the buying decisions ? is this uninformed people being in charge or what ? incompatibilities are biting businesses for awfully long time, but we still have.doc floating around, proprietary communications protocols (like for syncing) and whatnot...
Most businesses have no need for open standards because the current ones are nearly universal and work well enough to get the job done. I have yet to have a client that cannot open a.ppt or.doc file (99% of the time they use an MS product), Exchange AS works fine with my Treo and Palm OS (Letting me junk Goodlink and all the problems it causes while still synching calendar items and contacts) even though the IT folks only officially support WM devices; in short the overwhelming adoption of proprietary standards means there is no real push to fight for open ones.
Personally, as much as I would like an iPhone the inability to work with Exchange AS means I won't buy one (IMAP / POP3 is simply not an option for me because or IT folks won't enable it) Simply forwarding mail to an external POP3 or IMAP account doesn't work because Exchange only forwards external, not internal mail via rules _ I never could figure out how to forward internal email.) and I suspect that other business users who have come to rely on a working mobile email / calendar / contact solution will feel the same way. We want solutions that work without having to battle IT or devise workarounds that may or not be reliable.
I'm waiting for a nuclear engineer to show up and tell us how water can get in, but gamma particles can not. This is not a jab at nuclear engineers, I'm truly interested.
Pretty simply - water can seep in through any crack or joint in the concrete; over time even a small amount will casue items to oxidize and deteriorate just like in a moist basement. Gamma radiation is stopped very well by concrete (andrain a straight line) plus it would be a short term exposure from above while the water had 50 years to work its way through from all directions.
Slashdot Mirror
Taxation in general is an inefficient allocation of resources with significant deadweight losses.
That's a load of Republican propaganda (i.e. bullshit). Taxes build the infrastructure (roads, schools, firehouses) that allow the markets to exist.
Actually, it's simple economics. There are things that the government provides that represent the collective desires of the people; however tehre are many thing sthat are simply transfers of money with the attendent deadweight loss.
For example, politicians like to proclaim that they've created jobs when they open a new government facility in a town when all they're doing is transferring someone else's tax money to another location to pay for those wages and the building plus the cost of government administration of the funds; in othe rcases they simply use tax money to subsidize companies - at the expense of other, non-subsidized firms.
In economics, you need to ask "Who else is impacted" to assess the results of policy. To use an old example, if someone throws a rock through your window the money you spent helps the glazer but hurts whoever else you would have bought a product from with the money.
While there certainly are things a government does (and need to be funded with taxes) that are necessary (and teh reason people form governments)the notion that government can efficiently provide many services and fund them through taxes is simply wrong.
It's because of people like you that the US has no universal health care and most students spend half their lives paying of their loans.
Taxation in general is an inefficient allocation of resources with significant deadweight losses.
That is why you should sit at the wing if you have flight sickness. Center of Gravity.
Actually it the CP that's of interest,with Dutch Roll (caused by the forces acting on an a/c tail) is more noticeable in the aft section; if you're prone to motion sickness that may be a place to avoid.
personally, I'll take a F/C upgrade any day - at least if I die in a crash it'll be with some bourbon in hand...
Someone in the US military has been reading "how to make
friends and influence people".
Yes, especially the "when you have them by the balls the hearts and minds soon follow..." part.
Attracting subscribers can put a start-up deep into the red. Vonage added 166,000 subscribers in the first quarter of 2007, but lost $77 million."
I'm not surprised - Vonage gave me $200 to sign up (CC Giftcard)for a year at $14.95/month; netting them $80 (assuming they paid full price for the CC card and don't kickback anything to CC for the signup)for the year. I was nice, I didn't take their free PAP I simply canceled my existing Vonage service and activated the new number on my existing PAP. Strange way to run a railroad; but I'll take the cash, thanks.
The upside is I like their service - it works great from Europe so I avoid expensive calls; to Europe it is a wash at the basic level but if you call a lot it is cheaper with the unlimited calling.
There are other solutions now, but when I first signed up they were the only plug and play solution.
Yeah, it's not like the people who get rich in China are actually very comfortable part of the system, they want to go and overthrow the government at the first sign that they get a bit of money. I mean who wouldn't want to overthrow the very system that made you rich, been part of the 5% of the population with the connections to make things happen in China. Of course having "democracy" & "freedom" is better than maintaining the hegemony that has produced all the wealth for the top 5% of the population.
You'll notice I did not say the rich will want to overthrow the system, I said they will want to change how it deals with them. I think we are already seeing the central government losing its grip on internal policies - and local authorities wielding more power - witness the issue with immigration into Shanghai as an example.
Economic power ultimately translates into political power.
his whole middle-class revolution is pure bs from people who do not understand China. Throughout Chinese history, counting on about close to 20 revolutions/dynasty changes, it has ALWAYS been the peasants that have revolted, never the middle class. The idea that the people who have made the most out of the current political and economic systems are going to be the ones to topple it is as ridiculous as thinking that iraqis would welcome an American "liberator".
Which was my second point - as the poorer part of the population sees them getting less and less they will be the ones who start to revolt; resulting in more transfer of power from the central government to regions and possibly a breakup in what is currently China.
This may have been very true 10-15 years ago, but certainly not now. In fact, millions of Taiwanese (including 5 from my own family) have moved to the mainland to live and work permanently. It's the mainlanders who are the ruthless capitalist running dogs these days.
Which is the biggest threat to the leadership's control - as more people get money they start to want to do things with it; and get ideas about how the government should deal with them, as opposed to how the government wants to deal with them. Then, those that haven't enjoyed the economic boon start wanting a piece as well while those that have start getting less willing to see more of their money go to the government to be redistributed.
The Chinese leadership may think they can pull off keeping themselves in power and free up the economy; but given the size and divergent cultures within China I doubt they can pull it off.
how quiet will this boat be submerged? SSBN's are the chickens of the sea - they run away from the slightest noise in order to stay undetected; the attack boats like to trail them in order to kill them if needed. Unless these new ones are extra quiet they'll be less a strategic threat than a symbol of power. They could, for example, be used to try to forestall a US response to move against the Republic of China, depending how credible the US viewed such a threat. For China, it means they've added a new threat to many of their neighbors - it could get a bit busy with Russian, Taiwanese, and Japanese subs and ASW forces looking to track them.
That said, I'd love to be on the first boat to track one...
read /.
People should not have to worry about tricks like this. It should be (and probably is) illegal. It should be easily punished.
Unfortunately, I'm so jaded that I truly believe no one will get so much as a slap on the wrist over this.
I'm guessing, in the US at least, if they setup the site properly there would be nothing illegal about it. They could host "pirated" movies that the copyright owners gave them permission to use in this fashion; the EULA could specify that they are are allowed to search your machine for files and report back what is found and use the information in any manner they pleased.
Of course, I would also guess a defendant would get little sympathy for the "I was tricked" defense.
I think it's an important question and one that needs answering if the United States is going to replace their broken healthcare system. My answer is simply that even ignoring the people who don't work, it is still a better deal for you if you have socialised health care.
Free market economies work best when prices are elastic; that is, where changes in price affect the demand for the product. This allows price to signal the level of available supply and prevent shortages of goods. The problem with healthcare is that it is not elastic. If I have cancer, a broken leg or some other ailment I have to get it fixed - regardless of the cost.
The problem is not that some people will get more in benefits than what they pay into the system; it's that such systems will requiring rationing care. Emergencies will get priority treatment, and everything else will get "as available" treatment; you've replaced one type of rationing with another.
In addition, government control of health care means they control salaries as well, which would tend to reduce the supply of providers as people decide to enter fields with better pay; further worsening the availability of care.
Then there is the whole how do I verify eligibility so non-citizens or residents don't get free health care issue.
Socialised health care is not evil communism, it is a practical solution to the health care of your nation. I don't see anybody complaining about the socialised road, garabage collection, fire, police
Actually, we have a mix of public and private providers of those services, since government can't or won't provide the levels of service people want.
and military. When you trust the security of your nation to the government, why do you not trust your healthcare to them too?
Primarily because I don't want politicians and bureaucrats deciding what health care options are the best for me. I would not mind a system where government funded a minimum set of services (at public clinics) and offered catastrophic coverage (like flood insurance)and let private companies decide what benefits to offer, thereby maximizing my choices.
Cancel within 4 days and you get the activation fee refunded; and since you are within 30 days there is no early termination fee.
Essentially you are buying a very expensive iPod/WiFi web browser.
Went to ATT store on teh 30th - about 20 people milling around, I'd guess 15 or so were there for iPhones. Three on display - once someone shooed three kids away (10 - 14 yo; they were playing with the phones) the rest of us got to check them out.
Pretty neat interface, really nice screen, great form factor. A bit hard to type on the on screen keyboard, but then I'm used to Treo.
My name is called - said I wanted to ask some questions. The lady said she was the expert there - so I asked about synching via exchange active synch. Blank stare.
I asked about tethering as a modem - assured it can be done, costs an additional $60 per month.
I like the phone, but until it uses Exchange AS to synch with corporate email and can be used as a modem it's not that useful for me.
My guess is Apple and ATT are milking the early adopters by getting full margins on the phone, in a year or so we'll see $100 iPhones with real corporate connectivity. I hope the current price points aren't loss leader pricing; if Apple can't make decent money on each phone it is in trouble.
Ideally, the European ones will not be SIM locked and have removable SIMS o I can buy one there and use it here in the US, but I'm guessing Apple will replicate the locked phone model in Europe as well; given their insistence on doing things there way despite what the rest of the market is doing.
his is another example of how corporations and not people are the important ones in USA.
Not to mention that their ISP couldn't cut their pipe fast enough after Exxon complained. No due process here, just cut it off.... Only in America....
Unlike, say France, where it is crime to insult various people or groups.
Different distributors, I think you meant. I don't think the SCOTUS will have anything to say about this at all - after all, vendors already offer different pricing to different distributors based on stuff such as quantity ordered. The mom & pop stores will still have to sell at a higher price, if for no other reason that they won't be able to get the volume pricing a larger merchant will.
Yes, I did mean distributors. My error.
Minimum pricing would not impact what a seller pays for the item; it establishes a selling price. Therefore, even though company A may pay less for an item than the M&P on the corner, they can't sell it for less than the minimum price and undercut the M&P. They may make more profit per item; but the consumer is looking at their price, not the seller's profit. If the M&P wants a higher margin then they can price their item higher than the minimum; which is no different than today.
WWhere manufacturers and distributors will run into problems, IMHO, is if they don't establish a single minimum price for all sellers; if they don't then they are favoring some sellers by restraining other ones from competing on price.
I doubt this is as big a threat as some make out to discounting; all it means is sellers will need to be more creative. We already see "Why can't I show the price" buttons on internet sites; we'll just see more of that and special rebates. If manufacturers try to stop that they may find themselevs in violation of the Sherman Act; the SCOTUS didn't say minimum pricing was legal; they said it was not automatically a violation. My guess is manufacturers of luxury goods will impose this pricing structure to maintain the cache - no one wnats to buy a $400 purse and then see it sell for $100 and everyone owning one; more competitive products such as computers will see less of it because sellers with minimum pricing would be at a disadvantage to those without one; unless, like Apple, they have a unique product and are willing to be a niche player.
Even ignoring that, though, the Wal-Mart chains of the world, however, who have huge buying power, will still be able to do what they do now: say "You don't like it, fine. We're not carrying your product." Most manufacturers can't cope with the sudden drop of revenue when this occurs, and basically keel over and die. Thus, Wal-Mart is pretty much insulated from strong-arm tactics by nearly all manufacturers.
The people this will hurt most, contrary to the opinion of five SCOTUS justices, are the mom and pop shops. Now, the manufacturers will be able to tell those stores that they have to meet a minimum price while other manufacturers of similar products are still caving to Wal-Mart's price demands. The result will be that the disparity between Wal-Mart prices and prices at smaller stores will increase, driving those smaller stores even more quickly out of business.
There is simply no way to not see this as a serious blow to consumers.
Actually, there are.
First off all, tis can strengthen the Mom and Pop operations, because the big guys will no longer be able to undercut them since everyone will have a price floor; and I think courts, even the current SCOTUS, would view setting different minimum prices for different manufacturers as an anti-trust violation. That means a consumer can shop at a local small store, where service should be better, and not worry about price shopping. For consumers that value service they will have more choice based on service.
OTOH, I doubt it will have much impact on prices of anything but high end exclusive products. Companies can simply advertise and sell at the minimum, and offer their own instant rebates to reduce prices.
Of course, Congress or states could overturn the SCOTUS decision by writing a law taht makes minimum pricing deals illegal.
The activites of foriegn security services in the US is of interest, but when they are directed against private companies that should be including the cost of protecting their trade secrets into their business model, why would we use counter intelligence assests to help them?
Yes it does, because:
1) trade secrets can involve nations developing or refining existing capabilities; which has political ramifications so policy makers need to understand what capabilities other nations are seeking or developing;
2) intelligence operatives eek to gather a wide array of information, which could be used to carry out attacks against the US or its interests; since you cannot say with any certainty what the targets of such operatives may be it makes sense to keep as broad a spectrum of the population informed as possible so that you can thwart such attempts.
I don't think this is a market distortion but a rational attempt by government to protect its citizens.
As for market distortions we should avoid them but there are much bigger targets such as subsidies for various industries (ethanol, solar power, agriculture, etc.)that serve no purpose other than to maintain marginal producers in business.
I think you missed the point - the article was a sensational misstatement of what the FBI was doing and asking. Here is what the guidelines actually say, as opposed to what was stated in the article:
The fact that an individual exhibits one or more of these indicators does not automatically mean that he or she is engaged in espionage. However, based upon the situation, such factors can be cause for concern and might merit further investigation to determine whether espionage is a possibility.
We should report observations of one or more of the following indicators pertaining to a person with access to classified information:
Unexplained affluence
Failing to report overseas travel
Showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope.
Keeping unusual work hours.
Taking classified material home.
Unreported or concealed contacts with foreign nationals
Unreported contact with foreign government, military, or intelligence officials.
Attempting to gain new accesses without the need to know.
The key points are:
1 - exhibiting those behaviors do not mean someone is a spy; and
2 - they apply to people with access to classified information.
To your argument - "I'm a working academic, and the only point I don't score is unexplained affluence. To be successful in academia you need contacts, collaborations with other (gasp, foreign) groups, and branching out is often a good thing. Showing interest in colleagues work is as likely to be a sign that you've connected some pieces that the rest of us haven't. Maybe it'll be the next-cure-for-cancer, maybe it'll be a daft idea that goes nowhere." - point 2 is important because people with clearances and access are continually informed they are required to report foreign travel, contacts with foreign nationals (though generally only those that appear to be unduly interested in their work; not every contact at say a professional seminar), not to violate classified material handling rules, etc.
If you aren't involved in classified work then the indicators are not applicable to you; unless of course you've been taking classified material home and showing an unusual interest in someone's classified work. I doubt, despite your stating that you have done those things, that they are are normal activities of a successful working academic or that you really are taking classified material home and showing an unusual interest in someone's classified work.
"The point is, the listed indicators of espionage are also indicators of a successful researcher doing there job."
Actually, as I pointed out the indicators in the guidelines aren't activities of a successful researcher; although the inaccurate statements in the article may be - which is why context is important when apply the guidelines. It's the context that makes them useful; a researcher not involved in classified work exhibiting those behaviors mentioned in the article is of no interest and not doing anything unusual. One working on classified projects that is doing what you mention - "... contacts, collaborations with other (gasp, foreign) groups, and branching out is often a good thing. Showing interest in colleagues work..." isn't either as long as they follow reporting rules; which are designed to help identify and counteract potential recruitment efforts by foreign intelligence agencies.
"It's a bit like saying terrorists eat bread, lets investigate everybody who eats bread. It's probably true, it's just not very useful"
Didn't you notice the part that said:
"...based upon the situation, such factors can be cause for concern and might merit further investigation to determine whether espionage is a possibility."
It's a pattern of behaviors, that have been tied to espionage, in specific situations that are cause for concern. Even then, nowhere does it say "...lets investigate everybody [who exhibits those behaviors]..." as you claim.
In short, you've present
Since when is having a bit of cash ("Unexplained affluence") a suspicious activity?
Since when is failign to bore people with every detail of your vacation ("failing to report overseas travel,") a suspicious activity?
Since when is curiosity ("showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope") a suspicious activity?
Since when is working a night job ("keeping unusual work hours") a suspicious activity?
etc.
etc.
It isn't, unless you hold a security clearance and are working on sensitive projects; then you must report foreign travel and those other things are simply things to be aware of - as was pointed out in the guideline the article linked which were designed for organizations working on sensitive or classified projects.
The FBI is concerned that University researchers may not be aware of potential espionage threats and would like them to be aware of the threat and how to recognize *potential* attempts at espionage and what to do if they become suspicious.
In the long run, however, we are selling our souls, our technology, and our futures to a country -- a Communist country -- that openly considers the USA an enemy and is actively looking for ways to bury us. I think they found it and our weakness - it's greed.
Don'y worry, that's their's as well; and will cause them great political and social problems, perhaps even civil war. They're rapidly building a two tier society of have and have nots; eventually there simply won't be enough to go around to keep the military happy and the majority of the population that is not benefiting from industrialization compliant. Look at Sanghai and it's illegal immigration problem - they can't keep people out and need the cheap labor - because the Shangaianese won't do the jobs they thing are below them (sound familiar).
They may think they can get away with become a technological power without the corrupting influence of wealth but they are wrong As they become wealthier there cost advantage will disappear and shift to other developing nations, more people will demand prosperity, the younger generation will refuse to sacrifice for the common good, and leaders will arise who will oppose the central government; perhaps some of the very ones you talk about who are here today and eventually return.
Capitalism is the ultimate stealth virus.
What's puzzling about this is that it's totally out of touch with reality. The USSR was interested in American R&D, but that's because they had an industrial base and weapons plants that could use R&D. No enemy of the US today has anything like that.
n chesp.pdf)
Except tha a lot of espionage is done by our friends; whether it be against government agencies (such as Israel in the Pollard case) or private companises (such as the French do as explained by a retired head of one of their intelligence services -
'This espionage activity is an essential way for France to keep abreast of international commerce
and technology. Of course, it was directed against the United States as well as others. You must
remember that while we are allies in defense matters, we are also economic competitors in the
world.'" (Reference - http://www.hanford.gov/oci/maindocs/ci_r_docs/fre
Like it or not there are many countries that spy on us.
What freedom is taken away by the FBI asking people to watch out for certain behaviors
Nothing.
IF the behaviours are not unreasonable vague.
The list of behaviours mentioned here IS unreasonably vague.
Actually, they aren't because the FBI is looking for patterns of behaviour that may indicate someone is an espionage agent; any one is not really that odd or troubling but a set of them, over time, *may* warrant further investigation.
The list is the result of post-mortums of espionage cases to look for potential warning signs.
Like it or not, commercial espionage is a very serious issue; despite what movies and TV shows say, espionage by "friendly" countries goes on every day. They're not worried about military secrets; rather they want industrial ones that can help their own companies; so ensuring US universities are sensitive to indicators of espionage, just as commercial firms should be aware of the potential as well.
Despite the headline, the FBI is not asking universities to restrict anyone's freedom, all it is saying is "We will be glad to brief your staff on what to be aware of to help identify *indicators* of espionage, and ask that you tell us so we can investigate as appropriate."
The article states:
"US university students will not be able to work late at the campus, travel abroad, show interest in their colleagues' work, have friends outside the United States, engage in independent research, or make extra money without the prior consent of the authorities"
and provides a link to the guidelines that purport to do that. However, if the original author ever bothered to RTFG, they'd notice that the guidelines were simply that - a set of things to watch for that *may* indicate espionage; and don't ask anyone to restrict anyone's ability to "work late at the campus, travel abroad, show interest in their colleagues' work, have friends outside the United States, engage in independent research, or make extra money without the prior consent of the authorities"
Anyone who has had a US security clearance has received a similar brief on an annual basis; the idea is simply co-workers, who are in close contact with each other, are the best first line defense against espionage and should be aware of the warning signs.\\Of course, the truth is often not as newsworthy as some sensational spin.
if so, why don't we seen businesses demanding open standards used when they make the buying decisions ? is this uninformed people being in charge or what ? .doc floating around, proprietary communications protocols (like for syncing) and whatnot...
.ppt or .doc file (99% of the time they use an MS product), Exchange AS works fine with my Treo and Palm OS (Letting me junk Goodlink and all the problems it causes while still synching calendar items and contacts) even though the IT folks only officially support WM devices; in short the overwhelming adoption of proprietary standards means there is no real push to fight for open ones.
incompatibilities are biting businesses for awfully long time, but we still have
Most businesses have no need for open standards because the current ones are nearly universal and work well enough to get the job done. I have yet to have a client that cannot open a
Personally, as much as I would like an iPhone the inability to work with Exchange AS means I won't buy one (IMAP / POP3 is simply not an option for me because or IT folks won't enable it) Simply forwarding mail to an external POP3 or IMAP account doesn't work because Exchange only forwards external, not internal mail via rules _ I never could figure out how to forward internal email.) and I suspect that other business users who have come to rely on a working mobile email / calendar / contact solution will feel the same way. We want solutions that work without having to battle IT or devise workarounds that may or not be reliable.
I'm waiting for a nuclear engineer to show up and tell us how water can get in, but gamma particles can not. This is not a jab at nuclear engineers, I'm truly interested.
Pretty simply - water can seep in through any crack or joint in the concrete; over time even a small amount will casue items to oxidize and deteriorate just like in a moist basement. Gamma radiation is stopped very well by concrete (andrain a straight line) plus it would be a short term exposure from above while the water had 50 years to work its way through from all directions.