Well, considering that the Trump crowd, including a few posters here who should have the ability to actually write the code to de-dupe a bunch of fucking text files
It's hard to decide exactly where to jump into this fast-moving stream of circular back-patting by people who should know better, but I suppose this is as good a place as any.
These emails by definition cannot be exact duplicates, because they were forwarded from Huma's clintonemail.gov account to one of her other personal accounts. This is not even mildly controversial. See, for example, here: http://www.newsweek.com/hillar...
That being the case, neither the headers nor the bodies are going to match the emails that were reviewed before. So you're not looking at anything even close to "pretty trivial algorithms" to "de-dupe a bunch of fucking text files."
Please do feel free to explain to the class how easy it would be to craft an automated process that would massage the new emails to the point where you could confidently hash them against those of the original review set (collected from, remember, a completely different email system) and know for a certainty that by doing so you weren't throwing out any relevant data not represented in the originals. I look forward to thoughtful specifics rather than condescending hand-waving.
since the laws have not changed, you the driver (non driver) is still held to be responsible for now.
What current laws preclude manufacturer liability in the event of an accident due to a manufacturing or design defect?
Ok, ok, that was a rhetorical question. There's actually an entire body of law built around exactly the opposite proposition. It's called, aptly enough, "product liability" law. You can read some commentary by actual product liability lawyers on the allocation of liability for self-driving cars here.
At the last census, only 28% of blacks lived in neighborhoods that were at least 85% black.
You know, when I see oddball cutoffs like the 85% here, the question that immediately springs to mind is how extensive the clustering is immediately below the cutoff that would tend to disprove the point trying to be made via the quoted statistic. Do you happen to have the raw data handy? Thanks.
Why is it the medical field gets paid for a incorrect diagnosis and the treatment as well as correct ones? I think performance would increase if they knew they wouldn't get paid or have to refund it.
Excellent point, but we can take it further. How about programmers only get paid when they produce bug-free code?
Well, since you're big on actual quotes, let's look at an actual quote of what she said last night:
As I recall, that was something I said about Abraham Lincoln after having seen the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie "Abraham Lincoln" . ..
Which could only be considered "completely accurate" if you're engaging in some good old-fashioned Clintonian word parsing. The message she intended to convey, of course, was that she was only talking about Lincoln, not today, and certainly not about herself. But your own quote shows she wasn't only talking about Lincoln -- she simply invoked Lincoln as a historic example of the general principle she was espousing:
. . . and that's not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln . ..
And then, after finishing with Lincoln, she returned to her general principle:
I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.
So no, her representation last night was not even close to "completely accurate" -- it was the best spin she could come up with to try to save face.
Citing a bunch of 5-star "would give again" ratings (didn't we just have an article about that a day or so ago?) says absolutely squat about how much of the money actually ends up actually doing useful charitable work. Which, if you read carefully, was the statement I said needed a citation. Not how many people wuv it.
Hint: I've read their consolidated financial statements. Further hint: they don't drill down nearly far enough to reveal slush-funding, keeping cronies on payroll, etc.
If you have actual evidence to the contrary, I'm happy to look at it. But cut-and-paste cites to a bunch of cheerleading doesn't cut it.
So the section 336 exemption is followed exactly, except that the FAA says that if the drone is more than 0.55lbs it must be registered.
The fundamental problem here is that there can be no "except." Section 336 explicitly says the FAA has no power to regulate "model aircraft" as defined therein. The registration requirement is a regulation. Your theory that the "enforcement action" clause can be stretched to the point where it effectively nullifies the rest of Section 336 violates some pretty basic principles of statutory construction.
But it's up to the agency to create the laws that follow the outline in the law, and on general principle courts will yield to the regulating authority unless the disconnect is "big enough".
You mean like, for example, if the law explicitly says "the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft" and then the FAA does so? That's not a matter of degree or interpretation -- that's the executive thumbing its nose at the legislature.
Ah, so if the grant total of other administrative expenses for a drug company (of which your article freely admits that marketing is only a part, and tellingly doesn't even attempt to quantify how much) are more than R&D, and if you cherry-pick a single year such that it obfuscates the cyclic nature of R&D (where R&D for a given drug will be separated from marketing expenses and profits for that drug by many years), then R&D doesn't cost much of anything and thus need not really impact the sales price of a drug. Got it. I really want to think you would be a bit more attuned to this kind of shoddy analysis and faulty logic if its conclusion wasn't what you already obviously want to believe.
And it's also interesting that after you painted yourself into a corner on the original topic -- that the U.S. can't arbitrarily slash its pricing structure for drugs without adversely affecting the overall drug landscape, both for itself and others -- you've jumped to another lilypad and are now embracing a fundamental change to that landscape, arguing to put the entire pharmaceutical industry under state control (employing, dare I say, banal socialist propaganda?). I guess that's fine as long as you don't mind new, useful drugs -- and maybe even sufficient quantities of existing drugs -- becoming roughly as available as health care for veterans or eggs in Venezuela. Party on, comrade.
Sorry, bro -- you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on whether the prospect of losing a fiber internet connection is an "everything else fails" situation that calls for an uprising against the government. Talk about first world problems.
You're completely missing the point that the drug wouldn't exist in the first place if there wasn't enough of a revenue stream to justify its R&D. The fact that a drug company can bring in additional revenue through price discrimination in new markets after the R&D is paid for doesn't mean they could sell to everyone for that reduced price from day 1. This is pretty basic math.
Anarchy -- now that's the spirit. The country may go up in flames as more and more people model your example and just "take what's theirs," but thank heavens 1300 people will have a fast pipe to read about it.
In any single payer system the national health service basically sets the price they are willing to pay and that's what it costs. End of story. We only run into this problem because we have a portion of our population who breaks out in hives anytime they hear the words "socialized medicine".
You do realize that really means the U.S. is subsidizing the cost of the drug for those other countries, right? Free riders do not a free lunch make.
You are making the lawyers lot of money though I guess
How? Read their site -- the donated money in excess of the PTO filing fees gets paid to the prior art searchers.
which is probably why the Newegg lawyer thought of this brilliant idea
Or maybe it's because every bad patent that's killed through this process is one less bad patent that Newegg may have to pay real money to fight later on.
So, basically, you have a physical monopoly (the connection coming into your house), that we, the taxpayers subsided, that is now being abused as a content monopoly.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Customers who have both TV and internet service are more likely to watch TV shows via the TV service. Particularly for cable, that comes out of a different bucket of bandwidth than if you watch TV shows via an internet streaming service. In short, cord-cutters will use more--and likely far, far more--internet bandwidth over time than will TV subscribers. Building out infrastructure so that any given subscriber can reliably stream around the clock costs money. Data caps help keep the aggregate demand in balance with the current size of the infrastructure, and surcharges for uncapped data help the infrastructure grow to balance the increased demand.
I don't like it any more than you do, but at bottom there's no such thing as a free lunch. (In the hope of fending off at least a few reflexive downmods, let me be clear that this is a different issue than whether a provider's overall pricing is reasonable or is a monopoly rent -- I'm just discussing the provider's pricing delta (or lack thereof) between a TV subscriber and a cord cutter.)
Issue the fucking subpeona. When he doesn't immediately comply, charge him with inherent contempt of congress and have the sergeant-at-arms drag him forcibly in front of the committee to answer questions and jail him if he doesn't comply.
Hey, great idea -- that Bryan Pagilano dude is TOAST.
Given that I (and noone else discussing this here) has actually read the contract, there's no way to say for certain
There's a link to the contract in the summary, reposted here. (That copy doesn't include the appendices, which are here.)
That said, I infer that the contract reduces that performance bond when certain milestones are met.
Correct. The bond reduction schedule is on page 42 of the contract, and references performance benchmarks in Appendix F.
Interestingly, it says the bond was to be reduced to $15 million after meeting the 2011 performance numbers. It lists three more step-downs after that ($10 million, $5 million, and $1 million) that Verizon apparently didn't claim.
So a few things: First, this has been brewing for several years, and probably just boils down to whether Verizon met the 2011 benchmarks, not any of the earlier step-downs. Thus, if they didn't meet the 2011 benchmarks, the bond theoretically would only go back up to the 2010 level, $25 million, not the full $50 million. And the letter only claims 38k addresses in NYC are without service. That's a vanishingly low percentage, and according to Appendix F they only had to provide 66% coverage across NYC in 2011.
Given all that, this default letter strikes me as more of a media ploy than a reasonable expectation of legal recourse.
Good grief. You can feel free to address the substance of my posts if you like, but I won't be holding my breath. It's clear at this point you're just trolling.
Do you understand that the court system is part of the government too?
Probably better than you do. But given that I said "some politicians" and not "the government," I'm not sure of your point.
And it wasn't "the mob" who said Apple did something wrong.
Again, if you go back and read what I actually wrote, "claiming you've done something wrong" is how "some politicians whip up the mob into enough of a frenzy."
With the distractions out of the way, I'd love to hear the rationale for your original--and I think incredibly short-sighted--proposition that, once a political body declares you owe back taxes, "there doesn't need to be a judge or trial to collect those back taxes." First they came for Apple....
Slashdot Mirror
Well, considering that the Trump crowd, including a few posters here who should have the ability to actually write the code to de-dupe a bunch of fucking text files
It's hard to decide exactly where to jump into this fast-moving stream of circular back-patting by people who should know better, but I suppose this is as good a place as any.
These emails by definition cannot be exact duplicates, because they were forwarded from Huma's clintonemail.gov account to one of her other personal accounts. This is not even mildly controversial. See, for example, here: http://www.newsweek.com/hillar...
That being the case, neither the headers nor the bodies are going to match the emails that were reviewed before. So you're not looking at anything even close to "pretty trivial algorithms" to "de-dupe a bunch of fucking text files."
Please do feel free to explain to the class how easy it would be to craft an automated process that would massage the new emails to the point where you could confidently hash them against those of the original review set (collected from, remember, a completely different email system) and know for a certainty that by doing so you weren't throwing out any relevant data not represented in the originals. I look forward to thoughtful specifics rather than condescending hand-waving.
The FBI didn't get the warrant to search the emails until Oct. 30. http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...
Or so said a three-Democrat panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Shocking, really.
since the laws have not changed, you the driver (non driver) is still held to be responsible for now.
What current laws preclude manufacturer liability in the event of an accident due to a manufacturing or design defect?
Ok, ok, that was a rhetorical question. There's actually an entire body of law built around exactly the opposite proposition. It's called, aptly enough, "product liability" law. You can read some commentary by actual product liability lawyers on the allocation of liability for self-driving cars here.
Well if Tesla says they're not liable for product malfunctions, that's the end of it. /sarc
At the last census, only 28% of blacks lived in neighborhoods that were at least 85% black.
You know, when I see oddball cutoffs like the 85% here, the question that immediately springs to mind is how extensive the clustering is immediately below the cutoff that would tend to disprove the point trying to be made via the quoted statistic. Do you happen to have the raw data handy? Thanks.
Maybe try this. And sometimes NYT paywalls mobiles but tends to leave computers (or computer-looking user agents, anyway ;-) alone.
Why is it the medical field gets paid for a incorrect diagnosis and the treatment as well as correct ones? I think performance would increase if they knew they wouldn't get paid or have to refund it.
Excellent point, but we can take it further. How about programmers only get paid when they produce bug-free code?
Well, since you're big on actual quotes, let's look at an actual quote of what she said last night:
As I recall, that was something I said about Abraham Lincoln after having seen the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie "Abraham Lincoln" . . .
Which could only be considered "completely accurate" if you're engaging in some good old-fashioned Clintonian word parsing. The message she intended to convey, of course, was that she was only talking about Lincoln, not today, and certainly not about herself. But your own quote shows she wasn't only talking about Lincoln -- she simply invoked Lincoln as a historic example of the general principle she was espousing:
. . . and that's not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln . . .
And then, after finishing with Lincoln, she returned to her general principle:
I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.
So no, her representation last night was not even close to "completely accurate" -- it was the best spin she could come up with to try to save face.
Yes, seriously.
Citing a bunch of 5-star "would give again" ratings (didn't we just have an article about that a day or so ago?) says absolutely squat about how much of the money actually ends up actually doing useful charitable work. Which, if you read carefully, was the statement I said needed a citation. Not how many people wuv it.
Hint: I've read their consolidated financial statements. Further hint: they don't drill down nearly far enough to reveal slush-funding, keeping cronies on payroll, etc.
If you have actual evidence to the contrary, I'm happy to look at it. But cut-and-paste cites to a bunch of cheerleading doesn't cut it.
And what's the freaking point when this money is used for charity anyhow
Citation needed.
So the section 336 exemption is followed exactly, except that the FAA says that if the drone is more than 0.55lbs it must be registered.
The fundamental problem here is that there can be no "except." Section 336 explicitly says the FAA has no power to regulate "model aircraft" as defined therein. The registration requirement is a regulation. Your theory that the "enforcement action" clause can be stretched to the point where it effectively nullifies the rest of Section 336 violates some pretty basic principles of statutory construction.
But it's up to the agency to create the laws that follow the outline in the law, and on general principle courts will yield to the regulating authority unless the disconnect is "big enough".
You mean like, for example, if the law explicitly says "the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft" and then the FAA does so? That's not a matter of degree or interpretation -- that's the executive thumbing its nose at the legislature.
Ah, so if the grant total of other administrative expenses for a drug company (of which your article freely admits that marketing is only a part, and tellingly doesn't even attempt to quantify how much) are more than R&D, and if you cherry-pick a single year such that it obfuscates the cyclic nature of R&D (where R&D for a given drug will be separated from marketing expenses and profits for that drug by many years), then R&D doesn't cost much of anything and thus need not really impact the sales price of a drug. Got it. I really want to think you would be a bit more attuned to this kind of shoddy analysis and faulty logic if its conclusion wasn't what you already obviously want to believe.
And it's also interesting that after you painted yourself into a corner on the original topic -- that the U.S. can't arbitrarily slash its pricing structure for drugs without adversely affecting the overall drug landscape, both for itself and others -- you've jumped to another lilypad and are now embracing a fundamental change to that landscape, arguing to put the entire pharmaceutical industry under state control (employing, dare I say, banal socialist propaganda?). I guess that's fine as long as you don't mind new, useful drugs -- and maybe even sufficient quantities of existing drugs -- becoming roughly as available as health care for veterans or eggs in Venezuela. Party on, comrade.
Not unlike the recent rash of "but, but, it was the AUTOPILOT" claims from Tesla drivers after the first story broke.
Sorry, bro -- you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on whether the prospect of losing a fiber internet connection is an "everything else fails" situation that calls for an uprising against the government. Talk about first world problems.
You're completely missing the point that the drug wouldn't exist in the first place if there wasn't enough of a revenue stream to justify its R&D. The fact that a drug company can bring in additional revenue through price discrimination in new markets after the R&D is paid for doesn't mean they could sell to everyone for that reduced price from day 1. This is pretty basic math.
Arrest anyone that tries to shut it off.
Anarchy -- now that's the spirit. The country may go up in flames as more and more people model your example and just "take what's theirs," but thank heavens 1300 people will have a fast pipe to read about it.
In any single payer system the national health service basically sets the price they are willing to pay and that's what it costs. End of story. We only run into this problem because we have a portion of our population who breaks out in hives anytime they hear the words "socialized medicine".
You do realize that really means the U.S. is subsidizing the cost of the drug for those other countries, right? Free riders do not a free lunch make.
You are making the lawyers lot of money though I guess
How? Read their site -- the donated money in excess of the PTO filing fees gets paid to the prior art searchers.
which is probably why the Newegg lawyer thought of this brilliant idea
Or maybe it's because every bad patent that's killed through this process is one less bad patent that Newegg may have to pay real money to fight later on.
So, basically, you have a physical monopoly (the connection coming into your house), that we, the taxpayers subsided, that is now being abused as a content monopoly.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Customers who have both TV and internet service are more likely to watch TV shows via the TV service. Particularly for cable, that comes out of a different bucket of bandwidth than if you watch TV shows via an internet streaming service. In short, cord-cutters will use more--and likely far, far more--internet bandwidth over time than will TV subscribers. Building out infrastructure so that any given subscriber can reliably stream around the clock costs money. Data caps help keep the aggregate demand in balance with the current size of the infrastructure, and surcharges for uncapped data help the infrastructure grow to balance the increased demand.
I don't like it any more than you do, but at bottom there's no such thing as a free lunch. (In the hope of fending off at least a few reflexive downmods, let me be clear that this is a different issue than whether a provider's overall pricing is reasonable or is a monopoly rent -- I'm just discussing the provider's pricing delta (or lack thereof) between a TV subscriber and a cord cutter.)
How much is very little?
The bottom quintile pays less than half a percent of all federal income taxes.
Issue the fucking subpeona. When he doesn't immediately comply, charge him with inherent contempt of congress and have the sergeant-at-arms drag him forcibly in front of the committee to answer questions and jail him if he doesn't comply.
Hey, great idea -- that Bryan Pagilano dude is TOAST.
Oh, sorry, wrong Congress.
Given that I (and noone else discussing this here) has actually read the contract, there's no way to say for certain
There's a link to the contract in the summary, reposted here. (That copy doesn't include the appendices, which are here.)
That said, I infer that the contract reduces that performance bond when certain milestones are met.
Correct. The bond reduction schedule is on page 42 of the contract, and references performance benchmarks in Appendix F.
Interestingly, it says the bond was to be reduced to $15 million after meeting the 2011 performance numbers. It lists three more step-downs after that ($10 million, $5 million, and $1 million) that Verizon apparently didn't claim.
So a few things: First, this has been brewing for several years, and probably just boils down to whether Verizon met the 2011 benchmarks, not any of the earlier step-downs. Thus, if they didn't meet the 2011 benchmarks, the bond theoretically would only go back up to the 2010 level, $25 million, not the full $50 million. And the letter only claims 38k addresses in NYC are without service. That's a vanishingly low percentage, and according to Appendix F they only had to provide 66% coverage across NYC in 2011.
Given all that, this default letter strikes me as more of a media ploy than a reasonable expectation of legal recourse.
Good grief. You can feel free to address the substance of my posts if you like, but I won't be holding my breath. It's clear at this point you're just trolling.
Do you understand that the court system is part of the government too?
Probably better than you do. But given that I said "some politicians" and not "the government," I'm not sure of your point.
And it wasn't "the mob" who said Apple did something wrong.
Again, if you go back and read what I actually wrote, "claiming you've done something wrong" is how "some politicians whip up the mob into enough of a frenzy."
With the distractions out of the way, I'd love to hear the rationale for your original--and I think incredibly short-sighted--proposition that, once a political body declares you owe back taxes, "there doesn't need to be a judge or trial to collect those back taxes." First they came for Apple....