I'd rather live in a world where "Died Waiting for an Organ Donation" isn't in anyone's epitaph.
As would I, but I don't think you need to change the law to make this happen. We really just need education.
We also need a lot of brain dead people. I'd be interested in knowing just how many useful organs are thrown away in the first place. The vast majority of deaths I would think are cardiac deaths and not brain deaths. And even when there's a brain death of an eligible donor, you've still got to find a match of some sort. Is the problem really lack of permission, or is it something else? I don't know.
Well, there's a section of your drivers license that allows organ donations - it could just as easily disallow donations.
That's not how it works in Florida. You are asked if you want to donate your organs in your application and you check "yes" or "no". I suppose if you checked neither they wouldn't print "organ donor" on your card like they have on mine, but that's really splitting hairs.
It's also rather irrelevant. Once you're dead it doesn't really matter what you wanted to do. I suppose you could argue that all bodies should automatically become the property of the state, and I guess I wouldn't personally object (assuming the state uses the bodies for good purposes), but I imagine there are quite a lot of people who would.
Fair to whom? The dead person?
Of course not. Fair to the next of kin. Again, your wishes are irrelevant (except to the extent your next of kin chooses to obey them). Dead people don't have rights. The person who makes the donation isn't the dead person, it's whoever takes custody of the dead person's body. If you don't have a will, it means your family (the specifics vary a little by state at that point, but if you're married it generally means your spouse). Even if you do have a will, it's up to whoever you name in the will to respect your wishes. As I've said, the law doesn't respect the rights of dead people (and how could it, dead people can't bring lawsuits).
How exactly would that work? Right now I assume they contact your next of kin and ask what they want to do. If they can't get in touch with your next of kin then I assume they don't allow the donation. Would you want it to work such that if they can't get in touch with your next of kin that they just donate away? Doesn't seem very fair to me. In fact, it'd be rather "screwed up".
We better get the US Congress involved to pass a federal law prohibiting people from selling stuff on eBay without first buying a license from Uncle Sam!
I think it's called a national ID card...
Seriously though, eBay could easily enable virtually equivalent security itself, by simply making some basic identity checks on its sellers and then giving out the names of the sellers. I'm not sure the point of the pseudonymity, I mean, for those who really need it selling directly on eBay isn't really the best choice anyway (go through an intermediary or something, then even eBay won't know who you are).
Ohio doesn't do that to other retailers or direct sellers; why is it singling out ebay sellers?
LOL. Read the article. It isn't singling out eBay sellers. In fact, "the legislature never intended it to apply to individuals selling items over eBay."
From the article: "The primary author of the legislation, State Sen. Larry Mumper, told the paper the legislature never intended it to apply to individuals selling items over eBay."
educe competition to make profits go up? yes but that would go against the founding principles of eBay wouldnt it?
Yes, I believe I alluded to that in the parenthetical I made, "which the whole point of eBay is to correct".
if only a few people are buying and selling on eBay it would change it from a huge cyber-flea market to a very limited cyber-store, one that would be crappy compared to the rest
Maybe I was unclear. I was talking about profits for eBay sellers, not eBay itself.
So forget free market let's just regulate everything so that a few fat cats can make tons of money?
I never said it was right or wrong I was just stating the facts.
For some reason I don't think anyone would propose a bill with that intention let alone pass it.
Yeah right. Unless those people passing the bill were in or were paid off by those in the industry. C'mon, just look at how many regulations there are on lawyers. And look at what the profession of most of the politicians is. Think it's a coincidence? It isn't.
Gibbons lost the case and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed the decision. The Court held that the New York law was unconstitutional, since the power to regulate interstate commerce, which extended to the regulation of navigation, belonged exclusively to Congress.
Actually Gibbens vs. Ogden was an example of an industry which was already regulated by the federal government. This is a much different case, because the federal government has not yet stepped in to regulate these transactions in this way.
In this case, the law still may be unconstitutional, based on the dormant commerce clause, but as long as the law does not discriminate against foreign commerce (which would certainly be true if it only applied to sellers located in the state, if anything it would then favor foreign commerce), then the court must do a balancing test: does the burden imposed by the law outweigh the benefits.
In this case, I don't know. A $50,000 bond seems quite excessive. But this is an arguable point, and it would be a much less open and shut case than you make it out to be by referencing Ogden.
Ebay scammers are _already_ breaking the law, so what qualms could they possibly have about "selling on ebay without a license."
I don't think the purpose is to stop them in that way, but rather to make them easier to identify. I'm not sure how useful it is if Ohio goes it alone, but if it were more widespread it wouldn't be so bad, as you could confirm with the govt to make sure the person really is licensed.
Meanwhile, all the honest sellers on ebay would be set back tremendously.
In the long run, if this happened, it would actually cause sellers to make *more* money (at least, those who survive). In a perfectly free market, there isn't much room for profit. You'll earn a minimal amount equivalent to how much work you put in. But add on regulations, and the potential for profit goes up. Look at the banking industry, the gambling industry, the alcohol and tobacco industry, even just the brick and mortar industries (which the whole point of eBay is to correctd). Regulations will serve to reduce competition, and reduced competition will cause an increase in profits.
If he's his own boss he wouldn't be making a three hour commute every day. Maybe he's being paid with a 1099, but he's not his own boss. Whoever works at that location 3 hours away is.
Why can't you move closer? I can't imagine you have any commitments at home for the 6 hours you're there, other than sleep. At the least you could rent a place to sleep near work. If you're putting yourself through all this you must be making good money. Spend some of it.
A wave is "A disturbance traveling through a medium by which energy is transferred from one particle of the medium to another without causing any permanent displacement of the medium itself." Under that definition, light qualifies.
False. Light is the particles.
The definition does not say that the wave cannot be particles.
You're saying that a stream from a hose is a wave of water.
No, I'm saying light is a wave.
Light behaves exactly like any other wave in every way except for the fact that it is quantized.
Light isn't quantized. I can make photons of any energy you want.
If that were true (and you haven't proven it is), then light is certainly not a particle.
And light doesn't behave exactly like any other wave in every way. Water waves don't obey quantum electrodynamics.
Yawn.
Your definition of a wave is far too narrow. You know we're not talking just about the things in the ocean, right?
No, we are talking about those.
Note the word "just". Waves in the ocean are waves, but they are not the only example of waves, nor is "the things in the ocean" the only definition of "wave".
The particles move, and then move back, and the wave has moved on.
No, it is simply semantics. A wave is "A disturbance traveling through a medium by which energy is transferred from one particle of the medium to another without causing any permanent displacement of the medium itself." Under that definition, light qualifies.
The only correct statement is that "light and waves both have sinusoidal curves associated with some part of their models." And that's it.
No, that's not it. Light behaves exactly like any other wave in every way except for the fact that it is quantized.
Makes a photon about as wavelike as a red and blue light revolving around on top of a police car as it passes you.
Your definition of a wave is far too narrow. You know we're not talking just about the things in the ocean, right?
"Photons are sometimes waves and sometimes particles" is also wrong. Photons are always particles.
Heh, I'd say photons are always waves. From the photoelectric effect we know that they are quantized waves, but that's really quite different from saying they are particles.
Anyway, it's really a matter of semantics. To be perfectly correct you can't say much more than "light simultaneously exhibits properties of both waves and particles." Of course, traditional "particles" don't exist other than as a mathematical ideal.
The argument against space having a physical existence is that it would provide a fixed frame of reference that doesn't really sit well with relativity.
It doesn't sit well with the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein's relativity just shows that it's reasonable to not have a fixed frame of reference (or alternatively that any fixed frame of reference will do), it doesn't prove there is none.
Anyway, if you want a fixed reference point which can be measured from any velocity and position in the universe, we now have one. Use the frame of reference in which there is no microwave anisotropy. There's your aetheral field.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't implement rel="nofollow" on someone else's site. Wikipedia has already implemented nofollow on its own site.
Is this a result of the fact that google switch to answers.com, a fork of Wikipedia, rather than to Wikipedia itself?
The strange thing is, I just looked at the source code, and apparently Slashdot hasn't added a "rel=nofollow" to the link you just gave.
Yes, some people do.
The US doesn't have sales tax. Most of the individual US states do.
The family of the dead person. You may not agree with their religious practices, but I'd say in this case they have a definite right to practice them.
I'd rather live in a world where "Died Waiting for an Organ Donation" isn't in anyone's epitaph.
As would I, but I don't think you need to change the law to make this happen. We really just need education.
We also need a lot of brain dead people. I'd be interested in knowing just how many useful organs are thrown away in the first place. The vast majority of deaths I would think are cardiac deaths and not brain deaths. And even when there's a brain death of an eligible donor, you've still got to find a match of some sort. Is the problem really lack of permission, or is it something else? I don't know.
Well, there's a section of your drivers license that allows organ donations - it could just as easily disallow donations.
That's not how it works in Florida. You are asked if you want to donate your organs in your application and you check "yes" or "no". I suppose if you checked neither they wouldn't print "organ donor" on your card like they have on mine, but that's really splitting hairs.
It's also rather irrelevant. Once you're dead it doesn't really matter what you wanted to do. I suppose you could argue that all bodies should automatically become the property of the state, and I guess I wouldn't personally object (assuming the state uses the bodies for good purposes), but I imagine there are quite a lot of people who would.
Fair to whom? The dead person?
Of course not. Fair to the next of kin. Again, your wishes are irrelevant (except to the extent your next of kin chooses to obey them). Dead people don't have rights. The person who makes the donation isn't the dead person, it's whoever takes custody of the dead person's body. If you don't have a will, it means your family (the specifics vary a little by state at that point, but if you're married it generally means your spouse). Even if you do have a will, it's up to whoever you name in the will to respect your wishes. As I've said, the law doesn't respect the rights of dead people (and how could it, dead people can't bring lawsuits).
Organ donation should be opt-out, not opt-in.
How exactly would that work? Right now I assume they contact your next of kin and ask what they want to do. If they can't get in touch with your next of kin then I assume they don't allow the donation. Would you want it to work such that if they can't get in touch with your next of kin that they just donate away? Doesn't seem very fair to me. In fact, it'd be rather "screwed up".
We better get the US Congress involved to pass a federal law prohibiting people from selling stuff on eBay without first buying a license from Uncle Sam!
I think it's called a national ID card...
Seriously though, eBay could easily enable virtually equivalent security itself, by simply making some basic identity checks on its sellers and then giving out the names of the sellers. I'm not sure the point of the pseudonymity, I mean, for those who really need it selling directly on eBay isn't really the best choice anyway (go through an intermediary or something, then even eBay won't know who you are).
They did pass it.
And I'm sure they were lobbied by the big time auction houses, who were afraid of small timers cutting into their business.
All they have to do is say to eBay that nobody from the state of Ohio can be registered on eBay to sell stuff without a valid Ohio license number.
Now that would be a clear violation of the Commerce Clause. eBay is not an Ohio company. Ohio has no right to regulate them.
Actually, the fact that it was already regulated is immaterial, because the Constitution clearly states...
What the Constitution states is as irrelevant as your opinion. All that matters is what the Supreme Court will say.
"The Congress shall have power...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
Notice there is no mention of "but it must already be federally regulated" in there.
Notice also that there is no mention of "The States shall not have power...To regulate Commerce among the States."
The dormant commerce clause is a lot more complicated than a third grade reading of one sentence in the Constitution.
Ohio doesn't do that to other retailers or direct sellers; why is it singling out ebay sellers?
LOL. Read the article. It isn't singling out eBay sellers. In fact, "the legislature never intended it to apply to individuals selling items over eBay."
From the article: "The primary author of the legislation, State Sen. Larry Mumper, told the paper the legislature never intended it to apply to individuals selling items over eBay."
educe competition to make profits go up? yes but that would go against the founding principles of eBay wouldnt it?
Yes, I believe I alluded to that in the parenthetical I made, "which the whole point of eBay is to correct".
if only a few people are buying and selling on eBay it would change it from a huge cyber-flea market to a very limited cyber-store, one that would be crappy compared to the rest
Maybe I was unclear. I was talking about profits for eBay sellers, not eBay itself.
So forget free market let's just regulate everything so that a few fat cats can make tons of money?
I never said it was right or wrong I was just stating the facts.
For some reason I don't think anyone would propose a bill with that intention let alone pass it.
Yeah right. Unless those people passing the bill were in or were paid off by those in the industry. C'mon, just look at how many regulations there are on lawyers. And look at what the profession of most of the politicians is. Think it's a coincidence? It isn't.
Gibbons lost the case and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed the decision. The Court held that the New York law was unconstitutional, since the power to regulate interstate commerce, which extended to the regulation of navigation, belonged exclusively to Congress.
Actually Gibbens vs. Ogden was an example of an industry which was already regulated by the federal government. This is a much different case, because the federal government has not yet stepped in to regulate these transactions in this way.
In this case, the law still may be unconstitutional, based on the dormant commerce clause, but as long as the law does not discriminate against foreign commerce (which would certainly be true if it only applied to sellers located in the state, if anything it would then favor foreign commerce), then the court must do a balancing test: does the burden imposed by the law outweigh the benefits.
In this case, I don't know. A $50,000 bond seems quite excessive. But this is an arguable point, and it would be a much less open and shut case than you make it out to be by referencing Ogden.
Ebay scammers are _already_ breaking the law, so what qualms could they possibly have about "selling on ebay without a license."
I don't think the purpose is to stop them in that way, but rather to make them easier to identify. I'm not sure how useful it is if Ohio goes it alone, but if it were more widespread it wouldn't be so bad, as you could confirm with the govt to make sure the person really is licensed.
Meanwhile, all the honest sellers on ebay would be set back tremendously.
In the long run, if this happened, it would actually cause sellers to make *more* money (at least, those who survive). In a perfectly free market, there isn't much room for profit. You'll earn a minimal amount equivalent to how much work you put in. But add on regulations, and the potential for profit goes up. Look at the banking industry, the gambling industry, the alcohol and tobacco industry, even just the brick and mortar industries (which the whole point of eBay is to correctd). Regulations will serve to reduce competition, and reduced competition will cause an increase in profits.
What if he is his own boss?
If he's his own boss he wouldn't be making a three hour commute every day. Maybe he's being paid with a 1099, but he's not his own boss. Whoever works at that location 3 hours away is.
Why can't you move closer? I can't imagine you have any commitments at home for the 6 hours you're there, other than sleep. At the least you could rent a place to sleep near work. If you're putting yourself through all this you must be making good money. Spend some of it.
A wave is "A disturbance traveling through a medium by which energy is transferred from one particle of the medium to another without causing any permanent displacement of the medium itself." Under that definition, light qualifies.
False. Light is the particles.
The definition does not say that the wave cannot be particles.
You're saying that a stream from a hose is a wave of water.
No, I'm saying light is a wave.
Light behaves exactly like any other wave in every way except for the fact that it is quantized.
Light isn't quantized. I can make photons of any energy you want.
If that were true (and you haven't proven it is), then light is certainly not a particle.
And light doesn't behave exactly like any other wave in every way. Water waves don't obey quantum electrodynamics.
Yawn.
Your definition of a wave is far too narrow. You know we're not talking just about the things in the ocean, right?
No, we are talking about those.
Note the word "just". Waves in the ocean are waves, but they are not the only example of waves, nor is "the things in the ocean" the only definition of "wave".
The particles move, and then move back, and the wave has moved on.
Sounds like light to me.
Heh, I'd say photons are always waves.
You'd be always wrong.
And it's not simply semantics.
No, it is simply semantics. A wave is "A disturbance traveling through a medium by which energy is transferred from one particle of the medium to another without causing any permanent displacement of the medium itself." Under that definition, light qualifies.
The only correct statement is that "light and waves both have sinusoidal curves associated with some part of their models." And that's it.
No, that's not it. Light behaves exactly like any other wave in every way except for the fact that it is quantized.
Makes a photon about as wavelike as a red and blue light revolving around on top of a police car as it passes you.
Your definition of a wave is far too narrow. You know we're not talking just about the things in the ocean, right?
"Photons are sometimes waves and sometimes particles" is also wrong. Photons are always particles.
Heh, I'd say photons are always waves. From the photoelectric effect we know that they are quantized waves, but that's really quite different from saying they are particles.
Anyway, it's really a matter of semantics. To be perfectly correct you can't say much more than "light simultaneously exhibits properties of both waves and particles." Of course, traditional "particles" don't exist other than as a mathematical ideal.
The argument against space having a physical existence is that it would provide a fixed frame of reference that doesn't really sit well with relativity.
It doesn't sit well with the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein's relativity just shows that it's reasonable to not have a fixed frame of reference (or alternatively that any fixed frame of reference will do), it doesn't prove there is none.
Anyway, if you want a fixed reference point which can be measured from any velocity and position in the universe, we now have one. Use the frame of reference in which there is no microwave anisotropy. There's your aetheral field.