1) States are typically allowed to impose their own, more stringent regulations on activity within their borders. Federal regulations are a minimum, not a maximum.
2) The FCC itself said that they are not authorized to regulate ISPs. If that's their claim, then they certainly can't bar the states from doing so.
3) The FCC is not authorized by any law to dictate what states may or may not regulate.
Both are massive enough to have reached hydrostatic equilibrium, which is the threshold any definition that would be adopted requires.
and orbital inclination
Pluto-Charon fails.
Even the problematic IAU definition doesn't use it orbital inclination as a criterion. Nor should they - it has nothing to do with the inherent properties of the body in question.
Don't forget - the FCC's own position is that there is no Federal law allowing them to regulate ISPs. And there certainly is no Federal law barring states from doing so. Nor is there one authorizing the FCC to regulate states' regulations - any such law would be a glaring violation of the Tenth Amendment.
... consider that the Feds can regulate what you grow in your own garden for your own consumption....
Because Congress passed a law, signed by the president, which authorizes federal agencies to regulate it. Federal agencies cannot regulate outside of the mandate given by Congress via passed laws. There is no law authorizing the FCC to regulate states' regulations.
The issue isn't that he drank underage. The issue is that he lied about it, among a number of other things. That is disqualifying conduct in and of itself.
That argument is not likely to work in this case. While it is true that ISPs can be viewed as covered by the commerce clause, federal agencies can only regulate as authorized by congress via law. The law that would apply is the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Unfortunately for the FCC's position, they argued that the law did not authorize the FCC to regulate ISPs when they scrapped the existing Net Neutrality regulations. If they don't have the authority to enforce Net Neutrality, they certainly don't have the authority to bar the states from doing so.
There are other problems with this argument as well. For one, the FCC is not authorized by any federal law to restrict what regulations states can carry out within their borders. For another, the Tenth Amendment is clearly on California's side, even if there were a federal law.
the crowd that spent a decade arguing the guns free school zone act was clearly regulating interstate commerce...
I have never in my life seen a single person make that argument. In fact, that law uses the exact same justification as the 21-year-old drinking age: Want federal funds? Follow federal guidelines. In the case of the drinking age, it was transportation funds. In the case of gun free school zones, it's education funds. There are other examples, of course, but the drinking age is the most famous.
I agree with most of what you're saying, but "equal funding per student" sounds a lot better in theory than it works in reality. A school in the middle of a city is going to cost considerably more than one in the middle of the country, if for no other reason than the cost of living is higher there, so you have to pay employees more. There are other factors, as well, such as higher utility costs in older school buildings and additional security costs.
Those regulations are there to protect the integrity of the market, which includes investors with both short and long positions, primary and secondary investments, ETFs, and any other investment vehicle available for trade in the market.
The SEC isn't some random "rich people". It's the organization charged by the people with enforcing laws which govern investment activities and corporate governance. This is a much bigger deal than a random lawsuit.
People loathe public transit (in the US) because, for the most part, we refuse to do it well. Where we do it well, people love it. The New York Subway is a great microcosm of this: it has been run well, and it has been run poorly. When it is run well, New Yorkers swear by it, despite the drawbacks inherent to putting a mass of humanity in a tube underground. When it's run poorly (like right now), people swear at it.
We've gotten this idea that things just happen without effort, so if something takes effort to do right, we say "Screw it - that doesn't work" instead of "How can we make this work better?" That attitude is what's going to kill our civilization.
Yes, she did. Nowhere near as much as Trump, or as consequentially, or as readily. But the big difference is that many on the left held her responsible for those lies and refused to vote for her. The right refuses to hold Trump to account in any meaningful way.
It takes intelligence to designate the task. Humans do this easily - they want a particular outcome, so they determine what needs to be done to achieve that outcome and satisfy the want. For example, I want to get my son a birthday present. In order to achieve that outcome, I need to acquire cash, determine what my son would like for a present, find somewhere that has the present, get the present, wrap it, and give it to my son.
AI doesn't want anything humans haven't told them to want, nor is it capable of identifying wants of others unless specifically told what they are. It has no need to give my son a birthday present, so it won't accomplish the task - even given complete capability to do so - unless it is specifically told to.
The real difference is that humans will give themselves tasks based on input, no need to have an outside source provide the task.
Put a human being in a room with a locked door, a chair, a table, a lamp, and some books, but direction of any sort. They will identify the objects in the room, the room dimensions, and possible ways to get out. They might yell for help for a while. Eventually, they'll sit down and start reading, or making paper airplanes out of the pages of the books, or something to pass their time. Humans have a need to "do". Even the stupidest among us will find some way to occupy ourselves when faced with no outside direction.
Put the best AI we have yet in the same room. It might identify the objects and the dimensions of the room, but once it has done that, it will sit and wait for instructions until directions are given - if they ever are. It has no wants, no needs, no reason to act unless it has been given a task by a human.
Until AI can give itself direction - until it can determine what it wants to do, it's going to be purely task-based and not true intelligence.
Tesla's best selling month (23,175 in August 2018) was only slightly better than Mercedes' worst month in the past four years (22,955 in July 2018). So far in 2018, Mercedes has sold ~220,000 cars in the US, compared with ~85,000. And Tesla hasn't outsold Mercedes in a single month.
Tesla has its production numbers going in the right direction, but it's not yet clear that they can sustain that level of production, nor that they can survive with the amount of debt the are carrying.
Slashdot Mirror
Three points:
1) States are typically allowed to impose their own, more stringent regulations on activity within their borders. Federal regulations are a minimum, not a maximum.
2) The FCC itself said that they are not authorized to regulate ISPs. If that's their claim, then they certainly can't bar the states from doing so.
3) The FCC is not authorized by any law to dictate what states may or may not regulate.
Could you please provide a source for your assertions?
That's Washington state. Not to be confused with Washington State in Pullman.
(based on mass
Pluto-Charon fails.
Both are massive enough to have reached hydrostatic equilibrium, which is the threshold any definition that would be adopted requires.
and orbital inclination
Pluto-Charon fails.
Even the problematic IAU definition doesn't use it orbital inclination as a criterion. Nor should they - it has nothing to do with the inherent properties of the body in question.
Even then, it's not clear that they can bar states from enacting more stringent regulations for business done within their states.
What's the applicable federal law which trumps this state law?
So, which federal law is supreme over this California law?
Don't forget - the FCC's own position is that there is no Federal law allowing them to regulate ISPs. And there certainly is no Federal law barring states from doing so. Nor is there one authorizing the FCC to regulate states' regulations - any such law would be a glaring violation of the Tenth Amendment.
... consider that the Feds can regulate what you grow in your own garden for your own consumption. ...
Because Congress passed a law, signed by the president, which authorizes federal agencies to regulate it. Federal agencies cannot regulate outside of the mandate given by Congress via passed laws. There is no law authorizing the FCC to regulate states' regulations.
The issue isn't that he drank underage. The issue is that he lied about it, among a number of other things. That is disqualifying conduct in and of itself.
Yup. If the FCC can't regulate ISPs, as they state, they certainly can't dictate that states can't do so, either.
That argument is not likely to work in this case. While it is true that ISPs can be viewed as covered by the commerce clause, federal agencies can only regulate as authorized by congress via law. The law that would apply is the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Unfortunately for the FCC's position, they argued that the law did not authorize the FCC to regulate ISPs when they scrapped the existing Net Neutrality regulations. If they don't have the authority to enforce Net Neutrality, they certainly don't have the authority to bar the states from doing so.
There are other problems with this argument as well. For one, the FCC is not authorized by any federal law to restrict what regulations states can carry out within their borders. For another, the Tenth Amendment is clearly on California's side, even if there were a federal law.
the crowd that spent a decade arguing the guns free school zone act was clearly regulating interstate commerce ...
I have never in my life seen a single person make that argument. In fact, that law uses the exact same justification as the 21-year-old drinking age: Want federal funds? Follow federal guidelines. In the case of the drinking age, it was transportation funds. In the case of gun free school zones, it's education funds. There are other examples, of course, but the drinking age is the most famous.
I agree with most of what you're saying, but "equal funding per student" sounds a lot better in theory than it works in reality. A school in the middle of a city is going to cost considerably more than one in the middle of the country, if for no other reason than the cost of living is higher there, so you have to pay employees more. There are other factors, as well, such as higher utility costs in older school buildings and additional security costs.
Those regulations are there to protect the integrity of the market, which includes investors with both short and long positions, primary and secondary investments, ETFs, and any other investment vehicle available for trade in the market.
The SEC isn't some random "rich people". It's the organization charged by the people with enforcing laws which govern investment activities and corporate governance. This is a much bigger deal than a random lawsuit.
People loathe public transit (in the US) because, for the most part, we refuse to do it well. Where we do it well, people love it. The New York Subway is a great microcosm of this: it has been run well, and it has been run poorly. When it is run well, New Yorkers swear by it, despite the drawbacks inherent to putting a mass of humanity in a tube underground. When it's run poorly (like right now), people swear at it.
We've gotten this idea that things just happen without effort, so if something takes effort to do right, we say "Screw it - that doesn't work" instead of "How can we make this work better?" That attitude is what's going to kill our civilization.
Hillary was caught lying lots of times ...
Yes, she did. Nowhere near as much as Trump, or as consequentially, or as readily. But the big difference is that many on the left held her responsible for those lies and refused to vote for her. The right refuses to hold Trump to account in any meaningful way.
Moving the goalposts. You stated that Tesla is already outselling Mercedes Benz. The data clearly indicates otherwise.
This assumes that it is actually possible for us to understand how cognition works.
It takes intelligence to designate the task. Humans do this easily - they want a particular outcome, so they determine what needs to be done to achieve that outcome and satisfy the want. For example, I want to get my son a birthday present. In order to achieve that outcome, I need to acquire cash, determine what my son would like for a present, find somewhere that has the present, get the present, wrap it, and give it to my son.
AI doesn't want anything humans haven't told them to want, nor is it capable of identifying wants of others unless specifically told what they are. It has no need to give my son a birthday present, so it won't accomplish the task - even given complete capability to do so - unless it is specifically told to.
The real difference is that humans will give themselves tasks based on input, no need to have an outside source provide the task.
Put a human being in a room with a locked door, a chair, a table, a lamp, and some books, but direction of any sort. They will identify the objects in the room, the room dimensions, and possible ways to get out. They might yell for help for a while. Eventually, they'll sit down and start reading, or making paper airplanes out of the pages of the books, or something to pass their time. Humans have a need to "do". Even the stupidest among us will find some way to occupy ourselves when faced with no outside direction.
Put the best AI we have yet in the same room. It might identify the objects and the dimensions of the room, but once it has done that, it will sit and wait for instructions until directions are given - if they ever are. It has no wants, no needs, no reason to act unless it has been given a task by a human.
Until AI can give itself direction - until it can determine what it wants to do, it's going to be purely task-based and not true intelligence.
Tesla's best selling month (23,175 in August 2018) was only slightly better than Mercedes' worst month in the past four years (22,955 in July 2018). So far in 2018, Mercedes has sold ~220,000 cars in the US, compared with ~85,000. And Tesla hasn't outsold Mercedes in a single month.
Tesla has its production numbers going in the right direction, but it's not yet clear that they can sustain that level of production, nor that they can survive with the amount of debt the are carrying.
... there are tons of studies on the social habits of monkeys, apes, dogs, cats, mice... why not try one of them?
Because they weren't studying MDMA. They were studying octopodes.
I think they would benefit more from trying MDMA on dogs.
Given that the authors are studying the neurology and behavior of octopodes, I think they would not.