It's not a horrible contract if both parties agreed to it
It's a horrible contract if it purports to require that consumers pay ESPN even if they don't want it. In fact, that's arguably illegal.
It's not good for the customer, but no one is forced to sign up for cable
Seriously? That's the best you have? It's OK for asshole cable companies to force you to buy something you don't want, and if you don't like that you're free to not have cable at all?
Complete and utter fucking nonsense.
Sorry, but ESPN has no legal standing to force the consumers of Verizon to essentially have a package which kicks back to ESPN.
That should get you a RICO conviction. Because if someone says "oh, sorry, but we have a contract with my cousin Vinnie, and you have to pay him every time you buy something from us".
Yeah, sorry. fuck that.
I'm not sure what legal argument and case law you are using for your argument; but there is nothing illegal about a company offering a bundle of services on a take it or leave it basis. You might not like it, but they can offer their product in any way they chose; no one is forcing you to get a cable subscription. RICO? Seriously? Your argument is like saying McD's and their hamburger supplier are violating RICO laws since the burger maker gets a kickback overtime McD's sells a burger and you can't buy just the bun without paying for the burger as well. To make it a/. preferred car analogy, forcing you to do that through the drive through.
As for your "it's not good for the consumer" argument I'd counter argue that it is good because the bundle price is probably less than what it would cost to get a separate set of channels a la cart; since ether bundle spreads the cost around a lot of consumers. In auditor, it makes channels you may be interested in but have very low actual viewership sustainable since they get money form all subscribers, not just the 2 that actually watch them.
Exactly. People seem to forget that labor is also a market. If people are unwilling to perform the job at a given pay rate, then the rate is then too low and must be adjusted.
For some reason we have allowed the creation of a permanent immigrant underclass in the US and convinced ourselves that no one else here is willing to do the job. Horseshit. No one is willing to do it at the artificially low wage that agribusiness wishes to pay. Supply and demand has been legislated out of the equation and has flipped the labor market upside down.
Exactly. Employees leave out the "at the wage I want to pay" at the end of their "I can't get people to take this job..." whine. It's no surprise as people get better educated they don't want to do back breaking labor at low wages.
Except the super teacher is called the professor and the tech is a graduate teaching assistant whoekes less than $15/hour amd whose main qualifiction is a lack of proficiency in English.
What you describe is not a duress password, it is a safety-destruct and the critical difference is that it is used before the bad guys have you in their power. Still a risk to your health, but less so as you did not disobey a direct order.
well, if someone is holding a gun to your head and telling you to gain access to a location I'd say they have you in their power and the password you give is under duress; since you would not use it in any other situation.
The idea is that if you beat somebody with a rubber hose, that does not leave any mark.
Also, stop the nonsense about duress-passwords. They do not work. Really not and no, your smart idea for any movie-like device that makes them work is just that: Movie-like but not real. On the other hand, trying to be smart with a duress password procedure can easily get you killed or worse.
That really depends on the circumstances. For someone with a PDA (remember them) or computer they are unlikely to be useful, especially if the person "persuading" you is convinced the device contains the information they want. OTOH, they can be useful in specific circumstances. We had a duress codeword to indicate forceable entry was being attempted. When the door was opened the bad guys would be treated by a bunch of pissed off guys with automatic weapons.
Even if we ignore the main use of Adblock Plus, which is blocking advertisements, and looking at the broader functionality of "users are legally allowed to control what happens on their screens and on their computers while they browse the Web", then it would be quite detrimental if users were force to render content on web pages. I personally don't use Adblock Plus, as I like to support the sites I visit, and most of the sites I frequent have only a moderate number of ads. However I do use stuff like Flashblock to stop things like autoplaying movies and animations. I also don't like running Flash by default as there are a lot of exploits. Not allowing users to run what they want, and being required by law to run whatever script the webpage sends at them is a recipe for disaster.
What we are seeing is a fundamental collision between the old and new concepts of control. It used to be we could not control ads, such as on TV, all we could do is use them to as a break to do something else. Then came the VCR with timeshiftimg and fast forward and control switched from the content provider to the end user; which set off a fight over that ability. We are seeing that in the online world now as technology allows users more control over how content is presented and delivered; and the content providers are seeking ways, either via technology or courts, to limit the transfer of control. Some try to use the old model digitally, such as magazines that provide an online edition via a "reader" that flips pages and shows add pages just as you would with the print edition. I suspect we'll see new ways of delivering adds, especially as the box in our home gets more adept at recognizing who, and how many, are in the room and paying attention. Content providers will move from the, in the US at least, model of Intro, Add, Title, add, 8 minutes of action, ad, etc. to a way to more fluidly place commercials. Who knows, maybe part of the show will have a blue screen so adds could be individually tailored during the show, much as MLB does with ads behind home plate.
Caps are getting more common in the US. One of the biggest national ISPs, Comcast, has been rolling them out city by city. So far still not in most of the country, but they've been rolled out as a "trial" in Atlanta, Memphis, Tucson, etc., and will probably be extended nationally. Here's their FAQ about it.
Caps are important to them because they see their cable monopoly slipping away as Netflix, HBO, et. al. offer a la carte purchase options that bypass their subscription based model. They realize they will eventually become a dumb pipe and need to find ways to extract extra money out of that pipe, be it by caps or trying to limit other entrants such as municipalities or Google. That's also why they want to own content providers so they can also sell content separate from cable.
My point is - would anyone have cared if he didn't trigger a 1000 pt market slide? This guy is a schemer, no doubt, but doing things that are illegal with a computer keeping tabs on the actions seems dumb, dumber than this guy seems to be.
I think this guy is just getting hanged because safeguards were not in place to prevent these legal actions. If someone is going to be hanged, it has to be the little guy, not the ones that created the system in the first place.
No, he was conducting trades apparently to give the impression of an active market without ever intending to actually make the trades. As a result, when other traders made trades he was able to take advantage of the moves and make money. In essence, he cooked the books and then ran off with the cash. the SEC frowns on that.
Brokers are supposed to offer stock they don't have. In many cases, they are legally required to do so. They have to offer to sell even if they hold no shares. This makes them "naked short." They have to run out and buy the securities before the price moves or they will lose their tail so to speak.
Not really. They match buyers and sellers so when a buyer's offer meets a sellers ask then the trade occurs. They make their money on the commission, although they could sell the stock from their portfolio if they wanted. Market Makers do that but they are a specialized type of trader, since they keep the market liquid for a specific stock.
T
1. Why have vaccines and autism rates both grown exponentially in the last 25 years? (no, detection does not come close to answering)
According to at least one study, changes to the diagnostic criteria and including outpatient diagnosis accounts for much of the rise. In essence, creating an autism spectrum diagnosis resulted in more diagnosis. That doesn't mean actual cases are on the rise since there is no way to rediagnosis those prior to the change. As for vaccines, correlation does not imply causation, something the recent study on the vaccine / autism link proves yet again.
The point of the Constitution was to draw a boundary for the government, and it was not supposed to ever exceed that boundary. Personal/Human rights were considered to be outside that boundary. The document was practically defining was how the government could supersede your rights (e.g. how imports and exports are handled), but that was all it could do. The Tenth Amendment articulates the thought the writers of the Constitution were assuming, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." If it's not in the Constitution, the federal government can't do it.
Some the founders worried that the government would start to invade the rights of its people if their rights were expressly enumerated. Hence we have the Bill of Rights that draws boundaries around particular rights that the government is not supposed to go inside (see the difference in perspective?). I happen to agree with the idea of the Constitution without the Bill of Rights in principle (government can't overstep its definitely), but look at how creative politicians have been bending, breaking and redefining the rules over the years.
Excellant points. However, the Constitution, absent the Bill of rights, could be viewed as granting broader powers to the government than intended, especially with the general welfare clause. Absent the first, that could be used to argue that some speech is rightfully censored. Even with the second we draw a distinction between commercial and other forms of speech so the government can regulate claims sellers of goods make but not the person making a political statement. Absent the second there no doubt would be a push to severely limit firearm ownership in light of the crimes committed with them. Wether or not you'd agree with such an argument I think we could agree that the 2cd makes it clear what limits there are in the general welfare clause. In the end, the Bill of Rights clarified certain rights so that a broad interpretation of the Constitution could not be used to limit them.
Overall, I'd say the Framers were an amazingly smart group of men.
Like many western states CA has a systems of water rights that gives rights to water to whomever got there first. It also means you get all of yours before the next person gets any, and so on down the line. That was fine until CA started to outgrow the available supply, and as a result some are left at the end of the pipe so to speak, with little or no water. Add in a desire by farmers to protect their access at the expense of others, and little demand to limit losses along the way to evaporation, etc, and you have a big problem. If farmers had to pay market rates for water they'd change their use habits, just as other users will as prices rise. As for desalination plants, they would be a good solution but no doubt would face NIMBY battles even as the same people want water; like power, they want it from a tap but don't want a plant next door producing it. The bottom line is souther CA can't continue to grow like it is and keep the same water use habits.
Then everyone should pay of the electricity they use (preferably by time of use since the cost of electricity to utilities varies during the day) and the utilities should pay all providers of electricity (fossil fuel, hydro, solar, wind, etc.) for the energy they provide (again, according to time of production since electricity at peak demand times is much more expensive than at slack demand times). The market would then sort out how much was used and produced.
The problem is what happens when the utilities do not need the power from a solar producer? For the plants they decide how much they want and when, the same should apply to solar. That means each installation needs a way to regulate output according to demand and to handle load orders 24x7 when they are not taking electricity
All of this is possible with Internet connected meters and power equipment. Utilities need to stop whinging and get to work managing the grid. The grid is changing and they need to adapt to do their job.
Again, the question is who pays for the grid modifications? Ultimately, it's the end users of course but new producers should cover the costs of modifications to accommodate them.
The power companies are all moving towards "smart meter" technologies anyway. Why not make sure they've put one in that can monitor the output of a PV solar (or even a wind turbine) installation while they're at it?
For that matter, it seems perfectly reasonable to require the homeowner to install such a meter as part of a solar installation, as a condition of being able to sell power to the utility -- or even to push power into the grid at all.
Not only a meter, but a disconnect so that if the power isn't needed then the transmission system can drop them form the grid. At that point it becomes the producer's responsibility to determine what to do with the excess power. Alternatively, the solar operator could drop prices to be the lost cost producer or even pay to have them take the power.
Power companies are lazy. They do know about every single solar installation attached to their grid and they can get "solar forecasts" to plan for sunny days, etc. They may not be using this information but they can and should use it to design the grid and manage it. They can design their grid for solar.
Who pays for this? The utility? The solar providers who are essentially mini-power plants and thus responsible for their impact on the grid? All users via a "solar fee?"
IT's early (for me) and my standard disclaimer of "the caffeine hasn't kicked in yet" applies, but "a power grid designed to carry it in the other direction" doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me.
I admit that circuits was a long time ago, and I never took (or had to take) the high power courses... But what does that even mean? The system is still AC, isn't it? So it's been handling carrying things in both directions forever.
Is this industry BS, or is there something to this claim?
There is technical merit to this claim. An electrical systems balances production, demand, and how the power it transmitted over the grid. Production is controlled by a load dispatcher who tells plants what to produce and when, and adjusts output based on changing demand. When you start adding in sources they cannot control it makes it much harder to maintain a balanced system and ensure it works properly. If, for example, you a significant number of producers pumping solar power into the grid you now have to figure out how to transmit it across the transmission system and maintain stability. if the products suddenly drop off you've got a new set of problems. Maintaining profitability is certainly a concern by system operators is also a viable one.
However, workers can undertake actions to increase their bargaining power and thus wages, as can any other supplier. [...] is no different than any economic transaction
It is different, because of the official governmental support worker-unions enjoy — instead of being treated with the anti-trust laws, like any other entity working to raise the prices of what its members are selling.
Except, unlike a group of producers acting in concert to exert market power; an employer still has many other options for labor. They can outsource, refuse to sign a contract and bring in replacements, move to another non-union location; unlike a monopoly where there is no other source of the product. Granted, those are not easy things to do but hey still are viable competitors to a union workforce. The government has intervened in the workplace in many ways, sometimes to the workers favor (unions, labor laws) and other times to the employers (non-competes, right to work laws,letting bankruptcy abrogate contracts and pension liabilities).
when we don't have unions to stand up for workers rights!
What rights? There is no right to employment.
True. However, workers can undertake actions to increase their bargaining power and thus wages, as can any other supplier. My hat you pay a wage is no different than any economic transaction. If workers can improve their position in negotiations than so be it. You're free to fire me and I am free to walk but often that is in neither of our best interested so we need to come to some agreement we both can live with.
I ask this honestly, as a non-USian - Illinois recently passed the "religious freedom for bakers that don't want to cater to gays because jebus"-act. But how is a religion defined in the US? Could I (theoretically, were I to live in IL as a citizen) start my own religion (here in.fi it takes just 20 people), and decide to not serve some of the customers of my business because of some arbitrary rule that happens to exist in my religion? Or is that while all religions are equal, some religions are more equal than others?
Actually, it allowed discrimination base don religious belief and not necessarily membership in a religious institution. I would imagine a court would have to decide if you decided not to serve say anyone named Bob because you decided the Church of Bob, Reformed considered it blasphemy and thus serving a Bob would be against your religious convictions. The IRS defines religious institutions for tax exempt status but courts could still intervene to say a specific practice was unlawful; nor would a court need to limit applying the law only if you belonged to a recognized church. As for the US government doesn't really define what is a religion but recognizes various practices in various contexts. For example, the US military provides guidance to chaplains on Wiccan practices so chaplains can minister to them.
Pre eternal September you could count on Seder to post long, rambling and confusing anti-Armenian screeds whenever turkey was mentioned. Made talking about Thanksgiving dinner interesting. I guess the web is too big to grep nowadays.
Even the German cars may not be made in Germany, BMW or example only makes half its cars there and Spartanburg SC is poised to overtake Dingolfing as the highest volume plant.
But that hair splits at both ends, as many "Detroit" cars are made in Mexico or Canada.
True. Between manufacturing costs and various laws such as fuel economy standards mean cars only relationship to the home country is the name.
Actually, Germany produces about half as many cars as the US.
Only if the goalpost is moved from cars to "all automobiles" a la the AC below. But I didn't say automobiles, I said cars.
Fair enough, although it is only about 1/4 higher in 2014 for cars.
Read again. You are re-hashing an argument you've had with others.
Considering my response to you was my first post I'm not sure what argument you are referring to that I made. All I did was point out the EP only freed slaves in territories in rebellion, I made no comment o weather or not they were citizens until you responded to me. I think we agree that they were citizens absent any laws to the contary, and I know of none that made them non-citizens.
I never said the Emancipation Proclamation freed all the slaves. I never said it freed any slaves. I just mentioned that when people talked about ending slavery, there was no talk about making the non-citizen slaves into free citizens. The acts (be they proclamations, amendments, or otherwise) merely made them free. Citizenship was assumed.
I think we are in agreement on that point
I took your statement:
Have you ever heard of the Emancipation Proclamation? Notice how nobody ever made the slaves citizens? They just set them free.
to mean the EP freed the slaves. If that was not what you meant then I misinterpreted your post.
They had full rights, but those rights were enforced unequally (and, by some accounts, still are, so long as the "dead black man by the hands of the cops" number greatly exceeds the "dead white guy by the hands of the cops" number).
Actually, Dred Scott said they did not become free by entering into a free state; thus the Constitution's Privileges and Immunities cause did not extend to the privilege of freedom to a slave form a slave state. In fact, Fugitive Slave clause prevented them from escaping and moving to a free state, so the right to move to another state was specifically denied them as a slaves and thus they didn't have all rights and privileges of a free citizen; until they were freed by Amendments.
Interestingly enough, despite all the "state's rights " arguments made as reasons for the South's secession, the slave states were all for the federal government forcing states to return slaves despite the free state's desire not to, to the point of passing The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793
Slashdot Mirror
Also, sticking in the outside lane at 5 miles an hour under [the speed limit], you'll always have a gap in front of you.
In Georgia, that will get you a ticket for impeding traffic, not to mention a symphony of air horns and possibly a collection of bullet holes.
Get real. if you're doing 50 in Georgia you're still in a parking lot or pulling out of your driveway.
It's a horrible contract if it purports to require that consumers pay ESPN even if they don't want it. In fact, that's arguably illegal.
Seriously? That's the best you have? It's OK for asshole cable companies to force you to buy something you don't want, and if you don't like that you're free to not have cable at all?
Complete and utter fucking nonsense.
Sorry, but ESPN has no legal standing to force the consumers of Verizon to essentially have a package which kicks back to ESPN.
That should get you a RICO conviction. Because if someone says "oh, sorry, but we have a contract with my cousin Vinnie, and you have to pay him every time you buy something from us".
Yeah, sorry. fuck that.
I'm not sure what legal argument and case law you are using for your argument; but there is nothing illegal about a company offering a bundle of services on a take it or leave it basis. You might not like it, but they can offer their product in any way they chose; no one is forcing you to get a cable subscription. RICO? Seriously? Your argument is like saying McD's and their hamburger supplier are violating RICO laws since the burger maker gets a kickback overtime McD's sells a burger and you can't buy just the bun without paying for the burger as well. To make it a /. preferred car analogy, forcing you to do that through the drive through.
As for your "it's not good for the consumer" argument I'd counter argue that it is good because the bundle price is probably less than what it would cost to get a separate set of channels a la cart; since ether bundle spreads the cost around a lot of consumers. In auditor, it makes channels you may be interested in but have very low actual viewership sustainable since they get money form all subscribers, not just the 2 that actually watch them.
Exactly. People seem to forget that labor is also a market. If people are unwilling to perform the job at a given pay rate, then the rate is then too low and must be adjusted. For some reason we have allowed the creation of a permanent immigrant underclass in the US and convinced ourselves that no one else here is willing to do the job. Horseshit. No one is willing to do it at the artificially low wage that agribusiness wishes to pay. Supply and demand has been legislated out of the equation and has flipped the labor market upside down.
Exactly. Employees leave out the "at the wage I want to pay" at the end of their "I can't get people to take this job..." whine. It's no surprise as people get better educated they don't want to do back breaking labor at low wages.
Except the super teacher is called the professor and the tech is a graduate teaching assistant whoekes less than $15/hour amd whose main qualifiction is a lack of proficiency in English.
What you describe is not a duress password, it is a safety-destruct and the critical difference is that it is used before the bad guys have you in their power. Still a risk to your health, but less so as you did not disobey a direct order.
well, if someone is holding a gun to your head and telling you to gain access to a location I'd say they have you in their power and the password you give is under duress; since you would not use it in any other situation.
The idea is that if you beat somebody with a rubber hose, that does not leave any mark.
Also, stop the nonsense about duress-passwords. They do not work. Really not and no, your smart idea for any movie-like device that makes them work is just that: Movie-like but not real. On the other hand, trying to be smart with a duress password procedure can easily get you killed or worse.
That really depends on the circumstances. For someone with a PDA (remember them) or computer they are unlikely to be useful, especially if the person "persuading" you is convinced the device contains the information they want. OTOH, they can be useful in specific circumstances. We had a duress codeword to indicate forceable entry was being attempted. When the door was opened the bad guys would be treated by a bunch of pissed off guys with automatic weapons.
Damn, lots of Stasi victims are still of working age even. You'd hope the Germans had developed more antibodies against this crap.
I'm guessing is more of a genetic predisposition towards rather than something they caught post - WWII.
given the power of oil companies in Oklahoma. Here is one interesting article:
http://www.newyorker.com/magaz...
that discusses how they keep control over drilling.
Even if we ignore the main use of Adblock Plus, which is blocking advertisements, and looking at the broader functionality of "users are legally allowed to control what happens on their screens and on their computers while they browse the Web", then it would be quite detrimental if users were force to render content on web pages. I personally don't use Adblock Plus, as I like to support the sites I visit, and most of the sites I frequent have only a moderate number of ads. However I do use stuff like Flashblock to stop things like autoplaying movies and animations. I also don't like running Flash by default as there are a lot of exploits. Not allowing users to run what they want, and being required by law to run whatever script the webpage sends at them is a recipe for disaster.
What we are seeing is a fundamental collision between the old and new concepts of control. It used to be we could not control ads, such as on TV, all we could do is use them to as a break to do something else. Then came the VCR with timeshiftimg and fast forward and control switched from the content provider to the end user; which set off a fight over that ability. We are seeing that in the online world now as technology allows users more control over how content is presented and delivered; and the content providers are seeking ways, either via technology or courts, to limit the transfer of control. Some try to use the old model digitally, such as magazines that provide an online edition via a "reader" that flips pages and shows add pages just as you would with the print edition. I suspect we'll see new ways of delivering adds, especially as the box in our home gets more adept at recognizing who, and how many, are in the room and paying attention. Content providers will move from the, in the US at least, model of Intro, Add, Title, add, 8 minutes of action, ad, etc. to a way to more fluidly place commercials. Who knows, maybe part of the show will have a blue screen so adds could be individually tailored during the show, much as MLB does with ads behind home plate.
Caps are getting more common in the US. One of the biggest national ISPs, Comcast, has been rolling them out city by city. So far still not in most of the country, but they've been rolled out as a "trial" in Atlanta, Memphis, Tucson, etc., and will probably be extended nationally. Here's their FAQ about it.
Caps are important to them because they see their cable monopoly slipping away as Netflix, HBO, et. al. offer a la carte purchase options that bypass their subscription based model. They realize they will eventually become a dumb pipe and need to find ways to extract extra money out of that pipe, be it by caps or trying to limit other entrants such as municipalities or Google. That's also why they want to own content providers so they can also sell content separate from cable.
Was cancelling the trades illegal?
My point is - would anyone have cared if he didn't trigger a 1000 pt market slide? This guy is a schemer, no doubt, but doing things that are illegal with a computer keeping tabs on the actions seems dumb, dumber than this guy seems to be.
I think this guy is just getting hanged because safeguards were not in place to prevent these legal actions. If someone is going to be hanged, it has to be the little guy, not the ones that created the system in the first place.
No, he was conducting trades apparently to give the impression of an active market without ever intending to actually make the trades. As a result, when other traders made trades he was able to take advantage of the moves and make money. In essence, he cooked the books and then ran off with the cash. the SEC frowns on that.
Brokers are supposed to offer stock they don't have. In many cases, they are legally required to do so. They have to offer to sell even if they hold no shares. This makes them "naked short." They have to run out and buy the securities before the price moves or they will lose their tail so to speak.
Not really. They match buyers and sellers so when a buyer's offer meets a sellers ask then the trade occurs. They make their money on the commission, although they could sell the stock from their portfolio if they wanted. Market Makers do that but they are a specialized type of trader, since they keep the market liquid for a specific stock.
T 1. Why have vaccines and autism rates both grown exponentially in the last 25 years? (no, detection does not come close to answering)
According to at least one study, changes to the diagnostic criteria and including outpatient diagnosis accounts for much of the rise. In essence, creating an autism spectrum diagnosis resulted in more diagnosis. That doesn't mean actual cases are on the rise since there is no way to rediagnosis those prior to the change. As for vaccines, correlation does not imply causation, something the recent study on the vaccine / autism link proves yet again.
The point of the Constitution was to draw a boundary for the government, and it was not supposed to ever exceed that boundary. Personal/Human rights were considered to be outside that boundary. The document was practically defining was how the government could supersede your rights (e.g. how imports and exports are handled), but that was all it could do. The Tenth Amendment articulates the thought the writers of the Constitution were assuming, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." If it's not in the Constitution, the federal government can't do it.
Some the founders worried that the government would start to invade the rights of its people if their rights were expressly enumerated. Hence we have the Bill of Rights that draws boundaries around particular rights that the government is not supposed to go inside (see the difference in perspective?). I happen to agree with the idea of the Constitution without the Bill of Rights in principle (government can't overstep its definitely), but look at how creative politicians have been bending, breaking and redefining the rules over the years.
Excellant points. However, the Constitution, absent the Bill of rights, could be viewed as granting broader powers to the government than intended, especially with the general welfare clause. Absent the first, that could be used to argue that some speech is rightfully censored. Even with the second we draw a distinction between commercial and other forms of speech so the government can regulate claims sellers of goods make but not the person making a political statement. Absent the second there no doubt would be a push to severely limit firearm ownership in light of the crimes committed with them. Wether or not you'd agree with such an argument I think we could agree that the 2cd makes it clear what limits there are in the general welfare clause. In the end, the Bill of Rights clarified certain rights so that a broad interpretation of the Constitution could not be used to limit them.
Overall, I'd say the Framers were an amazingly smart group of men.
Like many western states CA has a systems of water rights that gives rights to water to whomever got there first. It also means you get all of yours before the next person gets any, and so on down the line. That was fine until CA started to outgrow the available supply, and as a result some are left at the end of the pipe so to speak, with little or no water. Add in a desire by farmers to protect their access at the expense of others, and little demand to limit losses along the way to evaporation, etc, and you have a big problem. If farmers had to pay market rates for water they'd change their use habits, just as other users will as prices rise. As for desalination plants, they would be a good solution but no doubt would face NIMBY battles even as the same people want water; like power, they want it from a tap but don't want a plant next door producing it. The bottom line is souther CA can't continue to grow like it is and keep the same water use habits.
Then everyone should pay of the electricity they use (preferably by time of use since the cost of electricity to utilities varies during the day) and the utilities should pay all providers of electricity (fossil fuel, hydro, solar, wind, etc.) for the energy they provide (again, according to time of production since electricity at peak demand times is much more expensive than at slack demand times). The market would then sort out how much was used and produced.
The problem is what happens when the utilities do not need the power from a solar producer? For the plants they decide how much they want and when, the same should apply to solar. That means each installation needs a way to regulate output according to demand and to handle load orders 24x7 when they are not taking electricity
All of this is possible with Internet connected meters and power equipment. Utilities need to stop whinging and get to work managing the grid. The grid is changing and they need to adapt to do their job.
Again, the question is who pays for the grid modifications? Ultimately, it's the end users of course but new producers should cover the costs of modifications to accommodate them.
The power companies are all moving towards "smart meter" technologies anyway. Why not make sure they've put one in that can monitor the output of a PV solar (or even a wind turbine) installation while they're at it?
For that matter, it seems perfectly reasonable to require the homeowner to install such a meter as part of a solar installation, as a condition of being able to sell power to the utility -- or even to push power into the grid at all.
Not only a meter, but a disconnect so that if the power isn't needed then the transmission system can drop them form the grid. At that point it becomes the producer's responsibility to determine what to do with the excess power. Alternatively, the solar operator could drop prices to be the lost cost producer or even pay to have them take the power.
Power companies are lazy. They do know about every single solar installation attached to their grid and they can get "solar forecasts" to plan for sunny days, etc. They may not be using this information but they can and should use it to design the grid and manage it. They can design their grid for solar.
Who pays for this? The utility? The solar providers who are essentially mini-power plants and thus responsible for their impact on the grid? All users via a "solar fee?"
IT's early (for me) and my standard disclaimer of "the caffeine hasn't kicked in yet" applies, but "a power grid designed to carry it in the other direction" doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me.
I admit that circuits was a long time ago, and I never took (or had to take) the high power courses... But what does that even mean? The system is still AC, isn't it? So it's been handling carrying things in both directions forever.
Is this industry BS, or is there something to this claim?
There is technical merit to this claim. An electrical systems balances production, demand, and how the power it transmitted over the grid. Production is controlled by a load dispatcher who tells plants what to produce and when, and adjusts output based on changing demand. When you start adding in sources they cannot control it makes it much harder to maintain a balanced system and ensure it works properly. If, for example, you a significant number of producers pumping solar power into the grid you now have to figure out how to transmit it across the transmission system and maintain stability. if the products suddenly drop off you've got a new set of problems. Maintaining profitability is certainly a concern by system operators is also a viable one.
It is different, because of the official governmental support worker-unions enjoy — instead of being treated with the anti-trust laws, like any other entity working to raise the prices of what its members are selling.
Except, unlike a group of producers acting in concert to exert market power; an employer still has many other options for labor. They can outsource, refuse to sign a contract and bring in replacements, move to another non-union location; unlike a monopoly where there is no other source of the product. Granted, those are not easy things to do but hey still are viable competitors to a union workforce. The government has intervened in the workplace in many ways, sometimes to the workers favor (unions, labor laws) and other times to the employers (non-competes, right to work laws,letting bankruptcy abrogate contracts and pension liabilities).
What rights? There is no right to employment.
True. However, workers can undertake actions to increase their bargaining power and thus wages, as can any other supplier. My hat you pay a wage is no different than any economic transaction. If workers can improve their position in negotiations than so be it. You're free to fire me and I am free to walk but often that is in neither of our best interested so we need to come to some agreement we both can live with.
I ask this honestly, as a non-USian - Illinois recently passed the "religious freedom for bakers that don't want to cater to gays because jebus"-act. But how is a religion defined in the US? Could I (theoretically, were I to live in IL as a citizen) start my own religion (here in .fi it takes just 20 people), and decide to not serve some of the customers of my business because of some arbitrary rule that happens to exist in my religion? Or is that while all religions are equal, some religions are more equal than others?
Actually, it allowed discrimination base don religious belief and not necessarily membership in a religious institution. I would imagine a court would have to decide if you decided not to serve say anyone named Bob because you decided the Church of Bob, Reformed considered it blasphemy and thus serving a Bob would be against your religious convictions. The IRS defines religious institutions for tax exempt status but courts could still intervene to say a specific practice was unlawful; nor would a court need to limit applying the law only if you belonged to a recognized church. As for the US government doesn't really define what is a religion but recognizes various practices in various contexts. For example, the US military provides guidance to chaplains on Wiccan practices so chaplains can minister to them.
Pre eternal September you could count on Seder to post long, rambling and confusing anti-Armenian screeds whenever turkey was mentioned. Made talking about Thanksgiving dinner interesting. I guess the web is too big to grep nowadays.
But that hair splits at both ends, as many "Detroit" cars are made in Mexico or Canada.
True. Between manufacturing costs and various laws such as fuel economy standards mean cars only relationship to the home country is the name.
Actually, Germany produces about half as many cars as the US.
Only if the goalpost is moved from cars to "all automobiles" a la the AC below. But I didn't say automobiles, I said cars.
Fair enough, although it is only about 1/4 higher in 2014 for cars.
2014 Production
Although if you would add in light trucks in the US, which often are bought instead of a car as a primary vehicle, the stats would change.
Read again. You are re-hashing an argument you've had with others.
Considering my response to you was my first post I'm not sure what argument you are referring to that I made. All I did was point out the EP only freed slaves in territories in rebellion, I made no comment o weather or not they were citizens until you responded to me. I think we agree that they were citizens absent any laws to the contary, and I know of none that made them non-citizens.
I never said the Emancipation Proclamation freed all the slaves. I never said it freed any slaves. I just mentioned that when people talked about ending slavery, there was no talk about making the non-citizen slaves into free citizens. The acts (be they proclamations, amendments, or otherwise) merely made them free. Citizenship was assumed.
I think we are in agreement on that point
I took your statement:
Have you ever heard of the Emancipation Proclamation? Notice how nobody ever made the slaves citizens? They just set them free.
to mean the EP freed the slaves. If that was not what you meant then I misinterpreted your post.
They had full rights, but those rights were enforced unequally (and, by some accounts, still are, so long as the "dead black man by the hands of the cops" number greatly exceeds the "dead white guy by the hands of the cops" number).
Actually, Dred Scott said they did not become free by entering into a free state; thus the Constitution's Privileges and Immunities cause did not extend to the privilege of freedom to a slave form a slave state. In fact, Fugitive Slave clause prevented them from escaping and moving to a free state, so the right to move to another state was specifically denied them as a slaves and thus they didn't have all rights and privileges of a free citizen; until they were freed by Amendments.
Interestingly enough, despite all the "state's rights " arguments made as reasons for the South's secession, the slave states were all for the federal government forcing states to return slaves despite the free state's desire not to, to the point of passing The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793