Prices are not determined by cost. Prices are determined by what people are willing to pay. The COGS (cost of goods sold) only sets the floor.
Actually, it sets the long term floor price required to remain in business, not an absolute floor especially in the short run. Companies may sell at a loss in order to stay in a market in an attempt to outlast competitors in hopes that enough will drop out to allow prices to rise to profitable levels, or when the total loss is less by continuing to produce versus stopping production.
While this is true, I think the author was pointing out one of the 'flaws' of capitalism; Technology and infrastructure makes offering such amenities a very cheap proposition. And yet, you wind up paying through the nose for them in certain situations; It is basically a misrepresentation of the true cost of the good or service being provided. They can say the hotel room with everything a "less price sensitive" customer is looking for is offered at a competitive room rate, but the room rate quoted, and which is being compared against with other providers, is not the actual cost you will pay for it. This makes straight comparisons between different offerings difficult; It does not encourage a truly competitive marketplace, because it hides costs. It's sortof like the old axiom "Give away the razor, charge for the blades", except in this case, you can only see the cost of the razor, not the blades.
Transaction and search costs are a recognized component of a free market; a free market does not imply those will be zero. Rather, at some point the cost of determining prices exceeds the saving and people no longer seek additional information.
This is fundamentally anti-competitive and is not a truly 'free' marketplace, because price comparison is made very difficult in an effort to trap the less savvy agent. While "caveat emptor" may be a nice rebuttal in theory, in practice those uttering this phrase are making a far-reaching assumption: That the buyer is capable of being aware. Uttering these words is like saying "Oh, there's a minefield over there" after you've already stepped on a mine. If one truly supports the free market, then such predatory pricing tactics cannot be endorsed.
A la carte vs bundled pricing is not predatory pricing. Each is simply a way to price to attempt to reach as many customers as possible. Some may prefer to buy a la carte because they do not need internet access and hence do not want it included in the rates; others prefer a one price bundle and so some companies offer it.
A true free market system works best when all the agents have equal access to the data needed to make informed decisions; This ensures true competition, which is the driver of innovation. By obscuring these details and attaching hidden fees, it contributes to market inefficiency and hinders competition -- you can't be sure what you're paying for is at a competitive price, and thus, competition is less prevalent. Less competition means greater inefficiency. It means less trade. Those dollars aren't working as hard, and while it may benefit the individual vendors participating in such deception, it harms the entire economy.
Clearly greater information transparency improves market efficiency but full transparency is not needed for a functioning free market. Even in a free market companies do not just compete on price because if price alone is the differentiator then you are in a commodity market with no pricing power; which is why companies seek to differentiate themselves so they can command a higher price. A free market does not have to use a commodity pricing model.
"Hey, I'm so rich, that I don't care about a $9.95 internet fee tacked onto my hotel bill per night" -- said many (not all, granted) rich people, every day.
They'd care if they knew they could go across the street and save $10 a night... or about 10-15%. But they don't, so they can't.
And that's why high-end hotels don't offer free wifi.
Actually, most do - if you are a reasonably frequent guest. Loyalty programs are structured to encourage and reward repeat customers and identify the ones who drive profit and try to ensure they remain loyal customers. It's another way to drive loyalty by offering a tangible savings, which has little marginal cost for the hotel. In the end, many customers don't care about saving the $10 because they don't pay it anyway.
Plus, how cool would it be if Google made space ships?:D
Pretty cool, except of course when you fly over China only a subset of the desired data would be transmitted, over the EU you'd only transmit data to the EU; and none of the foregoing would matter because when it passes over the US all the data it collected would be beamed down anyway...
As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.
True - they must originate the bills (which is why this "The Senate must send us a budget" is a load of crap. However, spending bills, to become law must pass both houses and thus the Senate has an equal say in what gets funded. If the House refuses to come to an agreement on spending with the Senate then nothing gets passed. So in the end, it's a handful of R's in the House that have royally screwed things up.
As people start discovering what the Tea Party's position really means to them, the reasonable R's will figure out a way to move forward without them.
(I got layed off today. There my Hope and Change right up my ass.)
I feel your pain. I am in same boat, and am sick and tired of the Tea Party R's acting like the whiny kid who wants to take his ball and bat home because he can't have his way. The real R's need to solve it like we did on the playground - give them a good wedgie and get on playing like big boys and girls.
Republicans lost the overall vote in the House, but have many entrenched politicians thanks to excessive gerrymandering. They only can't do that for the senate because they can't manipulate state boundaries!
And yes, Democrats gerrymander too, but clearly Republicans have done it more, since they can drastically lose the popular vote for the house and still hold the majority of the seats.
So yes, MINORITY.
One reason the R's have been better at gerrymandering is they control more State governments so they can control redistricting after each census. With the advent of better analytic tools to predict voting patterns they are better positioned to draw districts that give them an better chance of winning and thus creating safe seats. Since Senators are elected on a state wide basis the that control is less able to influence outcomes; hence D senators from states that have R majorities in the House.
First the disclaimer. I do believe that professionally peer reviewed journals and reporting still has a place. I pay significant sums of money to subscribe to a newspaper, a few top magazines, as well as Science and Nature. They serve a purpose and, to me, are worth the costs.
That said Science is not beyond reproach on accuracy. Both journals has had a very scandalous path over the past few years with their accepting clearly fraudulent papers. In July, evidently, Alirio Melendez had a paper retracted. This researcher fooled many major journals with at least 13 papers. Science also published the paper on bacteria living on arsenic, which is generally seen as having major issues. I recall reading a paper related to dancing and sexual attraction, maybe in Nature, being retracted due to fabricated data.
True, but fabricating data carefully to make to support your conclusions and fabricating data and the accompanying experimental manner to clearly be bad science is two very different things. In this case, the author was careful to be sure any decent peer review would reveal the flaws in order to gauge how well journals conduct reviews.
That said, there is little wrong with a single suspect paper being published. This is how scientists communicate. There is little protection against fraud such as occurred in this case because it is so patently silly. Building a system to protect against such silliness would mean that we would no longer be focused on science. The real problem here is that the popular media does not understand the difference between a single piece of research and the process of research. Places like/. should know better, but they don't. The process of science is to reproduce and extend results.
Scientists communicate by publishing results of experiments that are designed to be scientifically valid. They may disagree about conclusions or methods and check the underlying experimental approach. A scientists may reach erroneous conclusions, parts of the experiment may be found to be problematic, etc.; but at least the paper is subject to a rigorous peer review to identify any obvious flaws before publication. What the author did was not fraudbut a simple test to see how well open access journals conform to accepted standards of scientific publication.
When a bad paper corrupts the process, as has happened when Science and Nature has published suspect paper, that is a problem. These journals, having high impact factors, have a responsibility to proctor what they publish. A backwater online journal does no necessarily have such responsibility, rather relying on the ethics of the researcher and a faith in the process of science to ferret out unethical and silly people like these.
I think some of those "backwater online journal(s)" rely more on willingness to pay to be published.
What is truly alarming is the simple bad science present in this research project. This experiment has no control group and does not try to match the target journals to an equivalent paper journals.
A company's sole purpose is to increase shareholder value
And since they have such a single-minded and potentially abusive purpose, and no conscience, we've historically had laws and regulations to limit their behavior.
While many laws and regulations do that; they also act to benefit incumbents by erecting barriers to entry for incumbents. As much as companies complain about "government regulations" they really don't want deregulation because it would mean competitors would find it easier to enter their markets; often with better cost structures, and reduce their profits or in the limit case drive them out of business. Airline deregulation is a case in point; once the CAB's pricing rules and controls over routes were eliminated the major airlines all of a sudden found they had unsustainable cost structures. AA's effort to prevent Southwest from operating out of Love Field and getting the Wright amendment passed is another example of how regulation is used to keep competitors at bay although SWA was smart enough to overcome those challenges.
The result is a competent creative who is suddenly being pitted against people whose standard of living requires a third or less of the salary by a company whose primary interest isn't in being a good corporate citizen, investing in the community, or even playing by the rules that conservative and libertarian proponents pay lip service to, but increasing "shareholder value" by any means necessary no matter who suffers, and no matter how bad it is for the community, the region, and the country.
A company's sole purpose is to increase shareholder value; as defined by the shareholders. Some companies include things beyond a financial return, or believe being socially responsible results in greater returns; but in any case they driver is still shareholder value and shareholders ultimately vote with their wallets.
So if I send you an email at blah@hggdfshjd.org and it forwards to your gmail account (that I don't even know you have), where is my knowledge and consent to the scanning and storing?
That's right, there isn't any.
That it is forwarded is irrelevant as you, absent an agreement with the review pent that states otherwise, cede control org the email once the recipient gets it; the same as something sent snail mail.
Charles Carreon, zany lawyer and poster-child for the Streisand Effect (sorry Babs) for his lawsuit against The Oatmeal creator Mattew Innman last year in his original role as legal counsel for Funnyjunk, as reported by ArsTechnica, seems to have finally called it quits.
The question is "when does teh government have a compelling reason to force you to forfeit that right because their is a greater good in forcing to speak.
We actually agree on this point. My priginal point was that it is a First, not Fifth, Amendment issue.
The answer is simple and held up by common law for centuries; "when the witness is not on trial and can not go to jail for speaking the truth". The administration of law and justice is a nation's highest duty and overrides an individual's desire to not testify. You mention "except in the most limited of circumstances". To me, testifying in a court of law where the witness will not go to jail is limited enough for me.
What if their religion refuses to recognize the jurisdiction of the court; or claim that a higher power's laws override mans and so they cannot be compelled to comply with said laws? Do you carve out a religious exception then
Religion trumps policy, where it can be accommodated, but does not trump law.
That is true but not in the way you mean it. The First,as law, says religion trumps other laws except in certain circumstances.
You are now assuming one of your conjecture that free speech is also free not to speak. They re not even close. Even if your conjecture was true, false imprisonment overrides almost everything.
I disagree. I think the right not to speak is as equally an important part of free speech as is the right to speak. To compel someone to speak,except in the most limited of circumstances, is denying them the right to say what they want. The question is "when does teh government have a compelling reason to force you to forfeit that right because their is a greater good in forcing to speak." I do not believe it is a simple yes or no answer.
We say "No" when it is speech we disagree with, such as allowing someone not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance; ; should that be extended to testimony in court?
No. In cases of religion where saying such oaths is forbidden exceptions are made. I know of no religion that has issue with speaking truth in court.
What if their religion refuses to recognize the jurisdiction of the court; or claim that a higher power's laws override mans and so they cannot be compelled to comply with said laws? Do you carve out a religious exception then
The real killer to the age of the Zeppelin wasn't the Hindenberg; it was the continuing series of crashes of airships due to bad weather.
Zeppelins are fair-weather flyers.
(with that said, however, with modern weather satellites and predictions, this would be much less of a problem than it was in the 1930s)
Hmmm. I suspect the advent of more reliable fixed wing a/c took the air out (or in, actually) of Zepplin travel as well.
I wonder if this new airship will have a high enough service ceiling to avoid a lot of the weather. BTW. Does NOVAAR and ECRM ring a bell?
We say "No" when it is speech we disagree with, such as allowing someone not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance
You're not reading the correct part of the First Amendment. The "Pledge" was objected to because of the "under god" statement, which is covered by the establishment clause of the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Meaning, you cant have the state force people to say "under god".
Though, it has yet to be argued (correctly) in SCOTUS.
Actually I was thinking of the Jehova's Witnesses (IIRC) objection on religous grounds that forcing speech violated there beliefs and therefore abridged their free speech rights. Under God was not the issue but the act of an path to an idol (the flag). While it cold he said to be a religous issue the issue was of speech not establishment.
a First Amendment issue. The Fifth is pretty clear - no self incrimination. Does the right to free speech encompass the right not to speak? Should the government have a right to compel speech? We say "No" when it is speech we disagree with, such as allowing someone not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance; should that be extended to testimony in court? What if you refuse to speak because you want to avoid helping a defendant? If you are their only alibi is tehre a compleling interets in forcing testimony that overrides your right to free speech?
Crisis solved. I will even waive my customary consulting fee.
Actually, charge more. Seriously if demand goes up significantly so will price until new factories come on line. Of course, extrapolating future demand from a small data set is not a good predictor of future demand. If Tesla became such a large purchaser of cells I would guess manufacturers would be leery of adding significant capacity that could become excess resulting in a glut or idle factories if Tesla's demand suddenly lessened significantly.
yes. many people are unaware of the fact that these major power plants - coal, gas, oil, nuclear - are only efficient when they are at maximum capacity. if you shut them off for any reason (and this can be done fairly quickly), getting them back up to temperature can take *weeks*.
While I agree that operating base load plants such as nukes at max capacity is best; a nuke startup from cold shutdown to 100% can be done in a few days or less.
Money. Someone with a STEM degree can often make more money, in the short and long term, by working in a field that is not a "traditional" STEM field. The STEM "crisis" is the result of companies unwilling to compete on salary and benefits; in some cases they think their name alone should be enough to get job applicants lining up. I saw that as an MBA candidate; with major corporations crying they can't fill their interview slots. Well, guess what Sparky, if you offer 50%(or more) less than Wall Street and consulting firms you aren't very attractive. My class had a lot of recovering engineers such as myself; and none went to traditional STEM employers post grad school. Anecdotal information suggests a number didn't out of undergrad as well.
If lie detectors tests worked, advising someone to lie during such a test would result in their nefarious deeds coming to light. Why would that be a crime? Or are you assuming it's common knowledge that lie detector tests don't actually work?
Wether or not they work is irrelevant. Aiding someone in committing a crime, in this case helping someone make false statements, is a crime independent of what is used to verify the voracity of the statement.
the intention to use what he taught to commit a crime.
not quite...it was a sting operation the FBI set up...they posed as people who were guilty admittedly who were looking for 'help passing' the polygraph.
Not quite. Per the article he:
advised one undercover agent posing as the brother of a violent Mexican drug trafficker to withhold details during a polygraph for a Customs and Border Protection job, prosecutors said.
Which is a crime. He is free to say what he wants but not free from the consequences; which is why I find the whole First Amendment arguement nothing but the defense's attempt to spin in their client's favor.
The usefulness of polygraphs is irrelevant to wether or not he committed a crime.
Reading the article, I 'think' he was aiding specific people that had committed crimes (gave methodology how to get around what they did), and that is how he was charged. The issue is fed.gov is using this as a platform to give the appearance he was charged just for teaching anti-poly alone to cast a net of FUD around other who do so.
I don't think it is the Feds but rather his supporters are spinning it as a first amendment issue. From the articles I read the reason he was charged was he helped people who had stated the intention to use what he taught to commit a crime.
Slashdot Mirror
What about ebooks ... music ... movies
Prices are not determined by cost. Prices are determined by what people are willing to pay. The COGS (cost of goods sold) only sets the floor.
Actually, it sets the long term floor price required to remain in business, not an absolute floor especially in the short run. Companies may sell at a loss in order to stay in a market in an attempt to outlast competitors in hopes that enough will drop out to allow prices to rise to profitable levels, or when the total loss is less by continuing to produce versus stopping production.
While this is true, I think the author was pointing out one of the 'flaws' of capitalism; Technology and infrastructure makes offering such amenities a very cheap proposition. And yet, you wind up paying through the nose for them in certain situations; It is basically a misrepresentation of the true cost of the good or service being provided. They can say the hotel room with everything a "less price sensitive" customer is looking for is offered at a competitive room rate, but the room rate quoted, and which is being compared against with other providers, is not the actual cost you will pay for it. This makes straight comparisons between different offerings difficult; It does not encourage a truly competitive marketplace, because it hides costs. It's sortof like the old axiom "Give away the razor, charge for the blades", except in this case, you can only see the cost of the razor, not the blades.
Transaction and search costs are a recognized component of a free market; a free market does not imply those will be zero. Rather, at some point the cost of determining prices exceeds the saving and people no longer seek additional information.
This is fundamentally anti-competitive and is not a truly 'free' marketplace, because price comparison is made very difficult in an effort to trap the less savvy agent. While "caveat emptor" may be a nice rebuttal in theory, in practice those uttering this phrase are making a far-reaching assumption: That the buyer is capable of being aware. Uttering these words is like saying "Oh, there's a minefield over there" after you've already stepped on a mine. If one truly supports the free market, then such predatory pricing tactics cannot be endorsed.
A la carte vs bundled pricing is not predatory pricing. Each is simply a way to price to attempt to reach as many customers as possible. Some may prefer to buy a la carte because they do not need internet access and hence do not want it included in the rates; others prefer a one price bundle and so some companies offer it.
A true free market system works best when all the agents have equal access to the data needed to make informed decisions; This ensures true competition, which is the driver of innovation. By obscuring these details and attaching hidden fees, it contributes to market inefficiency and hinders competition -- you can't be sure what you're paying for is at a competitive price, and thus, competition is less prevalent. Less competition means greater inefficiency. It means less trade. Those dollars aren't working as hard, and while it may benefit the individual vendors participating in such deception, it harms the entire economy.
Clearly greater information transparency improves market efficiency but full transparency is not needed for a functioning free market. Even in a free market companies do not just compete on price because if price alone is the differentiator then you are in a commodity market with no pricing power; which is why companies seek to differentiate themselves so they can command a higher price. A free market does not have to use a commodity pricing model.
"Hey, I'm so rich, that I don't care about a $9.95 internet fee tacked onto my hotel bill per night" -- said many (not all, granted) rich people, every day.
They'd care if they knew they could go across the street and save $10 a night... or about 10-15%. But they don't, so they can't.
And that's why high-end hotels don't offer free wifi.
Actually, most do - if you are a reasonably frequent guest. Loyalty programs are structured to encourage and reward repeat customers and identify the ones who drive profit and try to ensure they remain loyal customers. It's another way to drive loyalty by offering a tangible savings, which has little marginal cost for the hotel. In the end, many customers don't care about saving the $10 because they don't pay it anyway.
Plus, how cool would it be if Google made space ships? :D
Pretty cool, except of course when you fly over China only a subset of the desired data would be transmitted, over the EU you'd only transmit data to the EU; and none of the foregoing would matter because when it passes over the US all the data it collected would be beamed down anyway...
As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.
True - they must originate the bills (which is why this "The Senate must send us a budget" is a load of crap. However, spending bills, to become law must pass both houses and thus the Senate has an equal say in what gets funded. If the House refuses to come to an agreement on spending with the Senate then nothing gets passed. So in the end, it's a handful of R's in the House that have royally screwed things up.
As people start discovering what the Tea Party's position really means to them, the reasonable R's will figure out a way to move forward without them.
(I got layed off today. There my Hope and Change right up my ass.)
I feel your pain. I am in same boat, and am sick and tired of the Tea Party R's acting like the whiny kid who wants to take his ball and bat home because he can't have his way. The real R's need to solve it like we did on the playground - give them a good wedgie and get on playing like big boys and girls.
Republicans lost the overall vote in the House, but have many entrenched politicians thanks to excessive gerrymandering. They only can't do that for the senate because they can't manipulate state boundaries!
And yes, Democrats gerrymander too, but clearly Republicans have done it more, since they can drastically lose the popular vote for the house and still hold the majority of the seats.
So yes, MINORITY.
One reason the R's have been better at gerrymandering is they control more State governments so they can control redistricting after each census. With the advent of better analytic tools to predict voting patterns they are better positioned to draw districts that give them an better chance of winning and thus creating safe seats. Since Senators are elected on a state wide basis the that control is less able to influence outcomes; hence D senators from states that have R majorities in the House.
First the disclaimer. I do believe that professionally peer reviewed journals and reporting still has a place. I pay significant sums of money to subscribe to a newspaper, a few top magazines, as well as Science and Nature. They serve a purpose and, to me, are worth the costs.
That said Science is not beyond reproach on accuracy. Both journals has had a very scandalous path over the past few years with their accepting clearly fraudulent papers. In July, evidently, Alirio Melendez had a paper retracted. This researcher fooled many major journals with at least 13 papers. Science also published the paper on bacteria living on arsenic, which is generally seen as having major issues. I recall reading a paper related to dancing and sexual attraction, maybe in Nature, being retracted due to fabricated data.
True, but fabricating data carefully to make to support your conclusions and fabricating data and the accompanying experimental manner to clearly be bad science is two very different things. In this case, the author was careful to be sure any decent peer review would reveal the flaws in order to gauge how well journals conduct reviews.
That said, there is little wrong with a single suspect paper being published. This is how scientists communicate. There is little protection against fraud such as occurred in this case because it is so patently silly. Building a system to protect against such silliness would mean that we would no longer be focused on science. The real problem here is that the popular media does not understand the difference between a single piece of research and the process of research. Places like /. should know better, but they don't. The process of science is to reproduce and extend results.
Scientists communicate by publishing results of experiments that are designed to be scientifically valid. They may disagree about conclusions or methods and check the underlying experimental approach. A scientists may reach erroneous conclusions, parts of the experiment may be found to be problematic, etc.; but at least the paper is subject to a rigorous peer review to identify any obvious flaws before publication. What the author did was not fraudbut a simple test to see how well open access journals conform to accepted standards of scientific publication.
When a bad paper corrupts the process, as has happened when Science and Nature has published suspect paper, that is a problem. These journals, having high impact factors, have a responsibility to proctor what they publish. A backwater online journal does no necessarily have such responsibility, rather relying on the ethics of the researcher and a faith in the process of science to ferret out unethical and silly people like these.
I think some of those "backwater online journal(s)" rely more on willingness to pay to be published.
What is truly alarming is the simple bad science present in this research project. This experiment has no control group and does not try to match the target journals to an equivalent paper journals.
This wasn't science but investigative journalism.
A company's sole purpose is to increase shareholder value
And since they have such a single-minded and potentially abusive purpose, and no conscience, we've historically had laws and regulations to limit their behavior.
While many laws and regulations do that; they also act to benefit incumbents by erecting barriers to entry for incumbents. As much as companies complain about "government regulations" they really don't want deregulation because it would mean competitors would find it easier to enter their markets; often with better cost structures, and reduce their profits or in the limit case drive them out of business. Airline deregulation is a case in point; once the CAB's pricing rules and controls over routes were eliminated the major airlines all of a sudden found they had unsustainable cost structures. AA's effort to prevent Southwest from operating out of Love Field and getting the Wright amendment passed is another example of how regulation is used to keep competitors at bay although SWA was smart enough to overcome those challenges.
The result is a competent creative who is suddenly being pitted against people whose standard of living requires a third or less of the salary by a company whose primary interest isn't in being a good corporate citizen, investing in the community, or even playing by the rules that conservative and libertarian proponents pay lip service to, but increasing "shareholder value" by any means necessary no matter who suffers, and no matter how bad it is for the community, the region, and the country.
A company's sole purpose is to increase shareholder value; as defined by the shareholders. Some companies include things beyond a financial return, or believe being socially responsible results in greater returns; but in any case they driver is still shareholder value and shareholders ultimately vote with their wallets.
So if I send you an email at blah@hggdfshjd.org and it forwards to your gmail account (that I don't even know you have), where is my knowledge and consent to the scanning and storing?
That's right, there isn't any.
That it is forwarded is irrelevant as you, absent an agreement with the review pent that states otherwise, cede control org the email once the recipient gets it; the same as something sent snail mail.
Even the green card lawyers never learned from the green card lawyers. I believe Canter and Siegel were unrepentant.
Perhaps; but sometimes, like the Titanic, your sole purpose in life may be to serve as a lesson to others...
Shit, talk about a run-on, convoluted sentence..
Charles Carreon, zany lawyer and poster-child for the Streisand Effect (sorry Babs) for his lawsuit against The Oatmeal creator Mattew Innman last year in his original role as legal counsel for Funnyjunk, as reported by ArsTechnica, seems to have finally called it quits.
Which do you propose doing first?
Green Card Lawyers and what happened after their postings to various Usenet groups. The only difference is the size of the mob.
The question is "when does teh government have a compelling reason to force you to forfeit that right because their is a greater good in forcing to speak.
We actually agree on this point. My priginal point was that it is a First, not Fifth, Amendment issue.
The answer is simple and held up by common law for centuries; "when the witness is not on trial and can not go to jail for speaking the truth". The administration of law and justice is a nation's highest duty and overrides an individual's desire to not testify. You mention "except in the most limited of circumstances". To me, testifying in a court of law where the witness will not go to jail is limited enough for me.
What if their religion refuses to recognize the jurisdiction of the court; or claim that a higher power's laws override mans and so they cannot be compelled to comply with said laws? Do you carve out a religious exception then
Religion trumps policy, where it can be accommodated, but does not trump law.
That is true but not in the way you mean it. The First,as law, says religion trumps other laws except in certain circumstances.
You are now assuming one of your conjecture that free speech is also free not to speak. They re not even close. Even if your conjecture was true, false imprisonment overrides almost everything.
I disagree. I think the right not to speak is as equally an important part of free speech as is the right to speak. To compel someone to speak,except in the most limited of circumstances, is denying them the right to say what they want. The question is "when does teh government have a compelling reason to force you to forfeit that right because their is a greater good in forcing to speak." I do not believe it is a simple yes or no answer.
We say "No" when it is speech we disagree with, such as allowing someone not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance; ; should that be extended to testimony in court?
No. In cases of religion where saying such oaths is forbidden exceptions are made. I know of no religion that has issue with speaking truth in court.
What if their religion refuses to recognize the jurisdiction of the court; or claim that a higher power's laws override mans and so they cannot be compelled to comply with said laws? Do you carve out a religious exception then
Yes to bad-terrain; no to bad weather.
The real killer to the age of the Zeppelin wasn't the Hindenberg; it was the continuing series of crashes of airships due to bad weather.
Zeppelins are fair-weather flyers.
(with that said, however, with modern weather satellites and predictions, this would be much less of a problem than it was in the 1930s)
Hmmm. I suspect the advent of more reliable fixed wing a/c took the air out (or in, actually) of Zepplin travel as well. I wonder if this new airship will have a high enough service ceiling to avoid a lot of the weather. BTW. Does NOVAAR and ECRM ring a bell?
We say "No" when it is speech we disagree with, such as allowing someone not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance
You're not reading the correct part of the First Amendment. The "Pledge" was objected to because of the "under god" statement, which is covered by the establishment clause of the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Meaning, you cant have the state force people to say "under god". Though, it has yet to be argued (correctly) in SCOTUS.
Actually I was thinking of the Jehova's Witnesses (IIRC) objection on religous grounds that forcing speech violated there beliefs and therefore abridged their free speech rights. Under God was not the issue but the act of an path to an idol (the flag). While it cold he said to be a religous issue the issue was of speech not establishment.
a First Amendment issue. The Fifth is pretty clear - no self incrimination. Does the right to free speech encompass the right not to speak? Should the government have a right to compel speech? We say "No" when it is speech we disagree with, such as allowing someone not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance; should that be extended to testimony in court? What if you refuse to speak because you want to avoid helping a defendant? If you are their only alibi is tehre a compleling interets in forcing testimony that overrides your right to free speech?
Make more?
Crisis solved. I will even waive my customary consulting fee.
Actually, charge more. Seriously if demand goes up significantly so will price until new factories come on line. Of course, extrapolating future demand from a small data set is not a good predictor of future demand. If Tesla became such a large purchaser of cells I would guess manufacturers would be leery of adding significant capacity that could become excess resulting in a glut or idle factories if Tesla's demand suddenly lessened significantly.
yes. many people are unaware of the fact that these major power plants - coal, gas, oil, nuclear - are only efficient when they are at maximum capacity. if you shut them off for any reason (and this can be done fairly quickly), getting them back up to temperature can take *weeks*.
While I agree that operating base load plants such as nukes at max capacity is best; a nuke startup from cold shutdown to 100% can be done in a few days or less.
'they will end up in other sectors of the economy and be productive."
That may be true (STEM grads probably have functioning brains),
So you're saying they have an actual brainstem?
Money. Someone with a STEM degree can often make more money, in the short and long term, by working in a field that is not a "traditional" STEM field. The STEM "crisis" is the result of companies unwilling to compete on salary and benefits; in some cases they think their name alone should be enough to get job applicants lining up. I saw that as an MBA candidate; with major corporations crying they can't fill their interview slots. Well, guess what Sparky, if you offer 50%(or more) less than Wall Street and consulting firms you aren't very attractive. My class had a lot of recovering engineers such as myself; and none went to traditional STEM employers post grad school. Anecdotal information suggests a number didn't out of undergrad as well.
If lie detectors tests worked, advising someone to lie during such a test would result in their nefarious deeds coming to light. Why would that be a crime? Or are you assuming it's common knowledge that lie detector tests don't actually work?
Wether or not they work is irrelevant. Aiding someone in committing a crime, in this case helping someone make false statements, is a crime independent of what is used to verify the voracity of the statement.
not quite...it was a sting operation the FBI set up...they posed as people who were guilty admittedly who were looking for 'help passing' the polygraph.
Not quite. Per the article he:
advised one undercover agent posing as the brother of a violent Mexican drug trafficker to withhold details during a polygraph for a Customs and Border Protection job, prosecutors said.
Which is a crime. He is free to say what he wants but not free from the consequences; which is why I find the whole First Amendment arguement nothing but the defense's attempt to spin in their client's favor.
The usefulness of polygraphs is irrelevant to wether or not he committed a crime.
Reading the article, I 'think' he was aiding specific people that had committed crimes (gave methodology how to get around what they did), and that is how he was charged. The issue is fed.gov is using this as a platform to give the appearance he was charged just for teaching anti-poly alone to cast a net of FUD around other who do so.
I don't think it is the Feds but rather his supporters are spinning it as a first amendment issue. From the articles I read the reason he was charged was he helped people who had stated the intention to use what he taught to commit a crime.