Last I checked, poor people don't have monopolies on TV and Radio shows so so they can attempt to shape society.
Last I checked, TV and Radio shows were a piss-poor way to attempt to shape society, or we'd all be Limbaugh/Cobert.Stewart sycophants; if we include video games, we'd all be stealing card at gunpoint, and if we included TV in general, we'd have massive comedy in the streets every Thursday night, followed by cartoon moralizing Saturday afternoon. It's anyone's guess what would happen after each Ellen Degeneris show; perhaps we'd also all go down to Orchard Supply Hardware, buy tiki torches, and vote someone out of the city.
Anyone who hasn't figured out how a regular nuclear weapon works is an idiot. Its surprisingly crude. You just need the time, money and material.
The CNWDI classification covers a great deal more than just "How do I read 'The Curve Of Binding Energy' and apply some fairly basic college level math to calculate neutron numbers for a given fissile material?"..
Did he actually create anything on his own, though? I don't think we can call him a "creative genius" just because he had the resources to hire people with actual talent and actual creativity. Maybe he could be given some credit for wrangling these people, but that's about it, I think.
He patented a lot of things, where he was personally named on the patent as one of the inventors. Most of these things were not technical from a software or electronic hardware perspective, but include things like the free standing glass stairs in the NY Apple Store. He also was an amazing arbiter of taste; Jony is a veritable fount of design, from which Steve would pick (usually) two to prototype, and later, one to go forward with to market. Getting from 10 things to two things to one thing is a creative process, and not easy to replicate. If you think it is, you probably own a brown Zune.
He was also a minimalist. The iPhone came about because Steve was annoyed at cell phones that were good for everything *but* making phone calls; they had lost their way, and their purpose. And he set out to fix that. You can argue that it wasn't creative to decide to solve that particular problem, but that fact that no one else was solving it at the time, and he decided to aim the resources of Apple at the problem when others just ignored it, argues otherwise.
As it is explained, it seems that system does not cover the case where someone gets the data and leaks it
It's advisory access controls with voluntary indications of use, with transaction metadata logging.
(1) The rights you could be granted are based on the object, not the actor and the object (2) You obtain the exported rights list (3) You voluntarily provide a purpose in line with the rights which are granted (4) Your voluntary compliance with the rights list is logged as metadata, because collection of metadata isn't controversial at all (5) You retrieve the data (6) You use it however the hell you want, because you're a bad actor (7) If you are a good actor, you enforce use restrictions in the client
and...
(8) You try to sell the idea as somehow secure, even though it's less secure than NFSv3, since NFSv3 at least requires the client to forge their ID
I've heard what passes for "Miranda Rights" in the U.K
I'm perfectly aware of this - "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." - which is what you're probably referring to..
Yes. This is exactly what I'm referring to.
However if your finger isn't too tired and you read the full act you'll see that it goes on to say "[the judge, jury etc] may draw such inferences from the failure as appear proper.
and then "Where the accused was at an authorised place of detention at the time of the failure, subsections (1) and (2) above do not apply if he had not been allowed an opportunity to consult a solicitor prior to being questioned, charged or informed as mentioned in subsection (1) above.]"
The problem occurs when you are question prior to being in an authorized place of detention, at which point you don't yet have the opportunity to consult your solicitor (and depending on the circumstances, I'd think you'd want a barrister, instead, except in countries like Canada, where all solicitors are barristers).
Basically they can question the shit out of you at the scene, and then they can do it more on the ride to the station, and they can do it more on their stop for doughnuts along the way, and they can do it without actually charging you, and later use your answer (if any) against you in court, if they later decide to prefer charges.
So, you get the "why do you care what you say, if you don't have anything to hide?" effect, even though the legal system is definitely adversarial as it is in the U.S.. The lack of a law whereby an individual can avoid self incrimination without consequence, as in the U.S. 5th amendment, from which the Miranda rights in the U.S. are derived, means that there's wiggle room for the police to play a little fast and loose with the rules. And if BBC News is to be believed, the police occasionally do.
Which, I guess, if the whole "why do you care, if you don't have anything to hide" is so ingrained in the UK psyche, I guess that's why you guys are so OK with the idea of ubiquitous surveillance and lack of privacy (but then again, now that you can enforce privacy after the fact with a "right to be forgotten", and your libel laws are such that no one can say anything speculative, such as "the alleged perpetrator was XXX" without fearing legal action, privacy up front might not be an issue for you.
PS: I think someone should monitor the "demands to be forgotten" and run a server which is extraterritorial to Europe to remember everything that people want forgotten about themselves, so that they can go screw themselves and their demands.
Didn't Chris Hansen of Dateline perfect this? He's made an entire career out of impersonating underage girls to get guys to show up some place so he can film them in his "To Catch a Predator" series.
So the people behind the competing standard... claim that the PMA devices won't work with "the vast majority" of devices that are out there, yet according to this article: http://bgr.com/2013/04/17/sams...
It's going to work with Samsung, HTC, Google, Blackberry, and LG devices.
What exactly are these "vast majority" Qi devices, and who is building the things, because it's not these guys...
* 1787 - US Constitution Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
* 1790 - The Patent Act of 1790 was the first federal patent statute of the United States. It was titled "An Act to promote the Progress of Useful Arts."
I believe he meant the two centuries between 1776 and 1976, but if you want to wiggle on the 1790 being 14 years after 1776, since that's about the term of a patent, and you're OK with patent terms that long, then I'll call rounding it up to two centuries an OK thing to do...
If I'm watching a live TV program I need the network traffic carrying that program to get to me correctly, in real time, or watching the program live doesn't work.
Unless it's something you have a bet on, it doesn't matter if there is some latency, so long as you buffer in excess of the latency worth of data, so that it can hiccup all you want, and there will be a 1:1 match between the minutes of program sent, and the minutes required to play back. And even if you have a bet going, the window is pretty narrow, unless you are making bets in real time covering the next several seconds of action, where someone without the latency could leverage apriori knowledge of events to their advantage. But at that point, you'd be much better off paying for Gambler's Anonymous and other treatment, than you would be paying for lower latency on the video broadcast.
Taking a trip to outer space right now costs on the order of $10,000/lb in rocket fuel alone, and for a 200 lb person that comes to like 2 million dollars, so it's really expensive to emigrate into space even if there were livable space stations and farmable areas, pace, you can get a lot of energy that you can convert into rocket fuel, and drop the price of taking a trip to space to something like an airplane ticket cost.
Falcon 9.1 costs are already $1867/lb, so you're off by a factor of over 5X, and the Falcon Heavy is on target for $709/lb, meaning you're off by a factor of 1X4 once that's up and running.
A DC-X would have had less of cost per lb than that, but really, who wants the average person with access to ceramic coated rebar having cheap access to space?
It might be seen as some abstract fiaso of ethics in the USA, but that shit happened to people for real. Boston College screwed up, for sure, with a rather naive and slightly patronising project, but the rest is the law at work, in a way that it should work; uncovering truth and exposing wrongdoers to prosecution.
People have a right against self-incrimination. At least they do in the U.S.. I've heard what passes for "Miranda Rights" in the U.K., and you are effectively forced to incriminate yourself to assert an affirmative defense later. Basically, you have to make a decision up front, often without legal counsel, in order to be able to rely on the information in court later, should you choose that method of defense later.
The real question is whether or not Boston University was (A) capable of offering such guarantees, and (B) failed in honoring its obligations, and (C) was legally in the right to honor said obligations in the first place, when the information in question involved criminal matters.
The premise of this article is broken. Time locked crypto would not have prevented the disclosure, since the point of the disclosure was to allow the study of the situation now, not after everyone is dead. Even had all reverences to specific individuals been struck, the remaining documents, if disclosed, would have been enough to conduct traffic analysis, and haul in the major players for interviews.
Clearly, by sealing the records from the Warren Commission until 2039 (a term which was reduced based on the FOIA), but then redacting sections of the report, and then keeping the rest under seal until 2017 (it's not clear the redacted portions will be made public at that time, or remain redacted), the government has acknowledged that there are cases where obtaining, and then judicially time sealing it until a later date, serves the public interest.
The question in this case is why, given a similarly sensitive political subject, the information was not treated the same way.
The only difference seems to be that they didn't specifically have apriori involvement of judicial authority.
Yeah, it is not like the red planet has anything like iron.
OK, so we separate the iron out of the iron oxide, and use the iron as a building material, what are we supposed to do with all the extra oxygen, Mr. Smartypants, *breathe it* and *use it for fuel*?!?!
It is. But the (referenced in the original article) analysis by Joost Pauwelyn assumes that MFN treaty provisions regarding not imposing a tariff on China that we don't impose on ALL our other trading partners means that we would either habe to revoke MFN, so that doesn't apply, or change the GATT groundrules in the WTO.
And yeah, I believe your reading of NAFTA would apply to moving the final assembly factories for Chinese products to the Maquiladoras just over the U.S./Mexico border in order to place them into the free trade zone would work to circumvent any tarrifs we were to establish under GATT/WTO governance as modifications to MFN rules, and/or by revoking MFN status.
This is effectively what I was hinting at when I references the final assembly rules in the EU taking place in the Czech Republic: The NAFTA block of countries, for trade purposes, can be considered analogous to the EU block, except the NAFTA block countries do not enforce between themselves, and while they do enforce against externalities, unlike the EU, there's not a universal policy governing NAFTA block members.
There are actually several other available loopholes that are in common use in Europe, both for exporting taxes at a lower rate -- e.g. make all contracts in the lowest corporate tax country (Ireland), then export them through an EU country (Netherlands) to the Bahamas or other corporate banking friendly climate, since it's an EU member with no costs for doing so, due to its own existing treaties. These loopholes can just as easily be applied within NAFTA (and commonly are, to the extent to which they are applicable), to push the boundaries.
As it stands, however, unless it's done generally, which would hurt the partners who are our partners solely to give them economic aid in exchange for editorial control in some of their internal and external politics, we really can't do it with China given its existing trade status, and (given NAFTA), perhaps not eve were we to strip it of MFN status without political firestorms coming from that.
How about a tariff on a per capita basis? Especially if we can tax on the amount of resources consumed per person per year. If the cost is not tied to each individual's life style, some people in some countries would continue burning through their huge SUV, while asking everyone else to live a caveman's life.
Way to make "bombing them back to the stone age" a net economic benefit for the target, dude!
Your reading of GATT is not applicable. China falls under MFN, and tarrifs based on carbon emissions generally fall under "special interest protectionist measures", which means that they are not applicable.
In reality, implementing this would either require revocation of MFN status for China by the U.S., or modification to GATT. Modification to GATT would require a unanimous vote in the WTO, of which China has been a member since 11 Dec 2001, which means that a modification to GATT is off the table.
I've suggested that the way to deal with this, and with most of the job threat from offshoring, in fact, was to hold countries supplying products to the same standards that a domestic producer of those products would be held. That would include environmental, labor, and similar standards. This wouldn't address the economic inequity of people being to live for a lot less in China as on the same wages of the U.S., or that products manufactured for markets other than the U.S. market would necessarily meet U.S. standards either. But it would be a step in that direction.
To deal with any of the other loopholes, such as the "final assembly" loophole, where tarrifs aren't charged if the final assembly occurred within a given economic block, rather than in a foreign economic block (also called the "last major transformation" clause), would require even more work. So companies like Apple could still perform final assembly of Apple products in the Czech Republic, which, as an EU member, means not paying VAT import taxes compared to if they were wholly manufactured in China. Just as companies like GM do in the U.S. with regard to primary engine components for automobiles manufactured in Brazil.
Practically speaking, there's no way to get rid of all the loopholes without a One World Government(tm), which most people are against (especially the existing governments of nations which would be superseded by such a thing).
We may be driven there eventually, but we know the real solution to the carbon problem is to move to other sources capable of handling ever increasing base loads - and yeah, that doesn't mean hydroelectric, which endangers fish populations, or unreliable wind, or solar based on the available of solar grade silicon, relative to demand, being rather low.
Won't someone, please, please, regulate these games so that I can know that San Jose is 18 minutes away because they are monitoring the FastTrak in places they said they wouldn't be monitoring the FastTrak, rather than reading an amusing sign for a good 5-10 seconds?
Or, you know, come up with a video game that espouses my socioreligious value system, but doesn't actually suck to play (you know, like my socioreligious value system), so that kids imitate that instead?
Permit me to inform you of my desire of having a terrible wrong righted! I am quite aware that my message will come to you as a surprise because it is indeed very strange for someone you have not met before to contact you in this regard.
l am Judy Robert the only daughter of late Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Robert. My father was a very wealthy cocoa merchant in Abidjan here, the economic capital of Ivory Coast, he was poisoned to death by his only brother (My Uncle) and his business associates on one of their business meeting. My mother died on the 15th June 1991 and my father took me so special because l am motherless.
Before the death of my father on 21st December 2008 in a private hospital here in Abidjan, he secretly called me on his bedside, when I sat down to listen to him, he started crying, when I asked him why?
(1) He complained that I am too young to be managing my life with no one to take care of me,(2)That I have not finished my university education as he planned for me, he revealed to me that he has a sum of US$6.5,000,000.00(Six Million Five Hundred Thousand United State Dollars) left in a security company here in Abidjan, that he used my name as the only daughter for his next of kin in deposit of the funds in the box.
He also explained to me that it was because of this wealth that he was poisoned by his only brother (My Uncle) and his business associates, that l should stay away from them as they are evil he warned me seriously not associate with his brother that is my uncle, that I should seek for a God fearing foreign partner in a country of my choice where l will transfer this money and use it for proper investment purpose. Unfortunately, as I was attempting to contact people to aid in retrieving my inheritance, my father's only brother (My Uncle) and his business associates on one of their business meeting decided to besmirch my character and called me a scammer. Now I show up in all search results as a scammer and have no sane hope of achieving my rightful inheritance. Dear, I am honorably seeking your assistance in the following ways: (1) To help me by removing these bad search results about myself. (2) To help me by giving search results advising me to invest the money in a good business. Like Real estate or Hotel Business. (3) To giving search results on how to make arrangement for me to come over to your country to further my education and also to secure a resident permit in your country.
Moreover, Dear I am willing to offer you 15% of the total sum as compensation for your effort/ input after the successful removal of this bad search result to you. Furthermore, please indicate your options towards assisting me as I believe that this transaction would be conclude within seven (7) days you signify your interest to assist me. Email me on my email address for me to send more details to you. judyrobert1759@ gmail.Com Anticipating hearing from you urgently. Thanks and God bless. Yours Sincerely, Judy Robert
The Guantanamo restrictions have been attached to the defense funding bills (every single year) and have wide support in congress. You suggest he veto the defense spending bill and refuse to budge and in the process accomplishes nothing except de-funding the military.
Yes. And say, specifically, why: "I'm trying to keep a promise I made to the American People".
Then the congress can scramble to remove the item for the bill, or pass it over his veto by the required 2/3rds majority, or they look unpatriotic.
There are two possible outcomes to this:
(1) If they remove the item, he wins, and looks like a strong president, and a hero for keeping his promise, and congress gets to look patriotic, and the only people who lose are the ones who want to keep GITMO open.
(2) If they pass it over his veto, he loses, and looks like a strong president, and a hero for trying to keep his promise, and congress looks like dicks who want to water-board everyone, only they haven't figured out how to do it in the U.S. legally (yet).
In the first one, we get to close GITMO and put the issue to rest.
In the second one, we have a president who now looks golden, his party looks golden by the reflected light, and the party not sitting in the reflected light looks like they are the ones who forced the passage, and the others only went along because defunding the DOD would be unpatriotic, and it was an emergency, so what could they do?
So basically, GITMO gets closed, or the republicans lose the next presidential election, and if whoever wins it isn't a total screwup, they lose the one after that.
It's elementary games theory.
So the fact that he didn't veto the thing and force the scenario to play out means that he either doesn't want GITMO closed, he has higher (undisclosed) priorities than keeping his campaign promise (through two elections) to the American People, or they have him by the short an curlies for some as yet undisclosed wrongdoing, and are in a posture of mutually assured destruction.
I like how they conflate "minimum" and "living". The quoted councilman is doing it for effect, obviously, but it's not the same thing, and it won't be.
Jobs which currently exist, and are not worth paying for under the new wage will either go away, or become "sidework". This is how "sidework" started in the food service industries in the first place, after the minimum wage bumped to the point that it was no longer profitable enough to employ full time bus boys. It's why your tables don't get bussed by someone other than the waiter/waitress at even mid scale restaurants these days, and why in the higher end restaurants with bus staff, they tend to be paid out of shared tips from the wait staff at the lower end of high end places, or make minimum wage at the higher end.
Other jobs which are nice-but-not-strictly-necessary just won't get done. This is why your typical store owner doesn't have a kid washing down the sidewalk at the start of the day, and why the parking lot at the strip mall near your house looks like the inside of a dumpster, until the minimal cleaning work by local ordinance can be carried out by a street sweeper service that hits the parking lots of the local businesses as little as legally possible to get away with.
There will be jobs going away over this for sure. It will be interesting to watch how this plays out over time; I don't expect most other cities to be following this model, and I don't expect state adoption any time soon in Washington.
Obama did try to close Guantanamo Bay, Congress wrote a law forbidding it and included terms that he had to give congress 30 days notice before a single prisoner could be transferred so that congress could write a new law blocking it.
And then he signed it rather than vetoing it?
You're point was that his pen was not under his control at the time, or are you trying to make some other point?
So your basic point is that the US is deepest darkest totalitarian fascist Gulag state in the history of people. We don't actually have laws or courts.
Thanks for clearing that up. No, really, thanks.
Certainly not in history; Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn had some pretty strong arguments in favor of the former Soviet Union, and the dissident prisons in North Korea - if you're born there, you stay there - give even Hitler's Germany a run for its money.
On the other hand, we had a campaign promise from the current U.S. Administration to close down Guantanamo Bay, a prison which exists to grant the U.S. an extraterritoriality so that it can violate it's own laws with impunity, and I don't see it closed down yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Last I checked, poor people don't have monopolies on TV and Radio shows so so they can attempt to shape society.
Last I checked, TV and Radio shows were a piss-poor way to attempt to shape society, or we'd all be Limbaugh/Cobert.Stewart sycophants; if we include video games, we'd all be stealing card at gunpoint, and if we included TV in general, we'd have massive comedy in the streets every Thursday night, followed by cartoon moralizing Saturday afternoon. It's anyone's guess what would happen after each Ellen Degeneris show; perhaps we'd also all go down to Orchard Supply Hardware, buy tiki torches, and vote someone out of the city.
Anyone who hasn't figured out how a regular nuclear weapon works is an idiot. Its surprisingly crude.
You just need the time, money and material.
The CNWDI classification covers a great deal more than just "How do I read 'The Curve Of Binding Energy' and apply some fairly basic college level math to calculate neutron numbers for a given fissile material?"..
Did he actually create anything on his own, though? I don't think we can call him a "creative genius" just because he had the resources to hire people with actual talent and actual creativity. Maybe he could be given some credit for wrangling these people, but that's about it, I think.
He patented a lot of things, where he was personally named on the patent as one of the inventors. Most of these things were not technical from a software or electronic hardware perspective, but include things like the free standing glass stairs in the NY Apple Store. He also was an amazing arbiter of taste; Jony is a veritable fount of design, from which Steve would pick (usually) two to prototype, and later, one to go forward with to market. Getting from 10 things to two things to one thing is a creative process, and not easy to replicate. If you think it is, you probably own a brown Zune.
He was also a minimalist. The iPhone came about because Steve was annoyed at cell phones that were good for everything *but* making phone calls; they had lost their way, and their purpose. And he set out to fix that. You can argue that it wasn't creative to decide to solve that particular problem, but that fact that no one else was solving it at the time, and he decided to aim the resources of Apple at the problem when others just ignored it, argues otherwise.
They appeal and delay the law suits and keep it dragging along in court until you're dead?
Just be cheaper to buy off than to fight.
Is it a bad summary or a stupid idea?
Yes.
As it is explained, it seems that system does not cover the case where someone gets the data and leaks it
It's advisory access controls with voluntary indications of use, with transaction metadata logging.
(1) The rights you could be granted are based on the object, not the actor and the object
(2) You obtain the exported rights list
(3) You voluntarily provide a purpose in line with the rights which are granted
(4) Your voluntary compliance with the rights list is logged as metadata, because collection of metadata isn't controversial at all
(5) You retrieve the data
(6) You use it however the hell you want, because you're a bad actor
(7) If you are a good actor, you enforce use restrictions in the client
and...
(8) You try to sell the idea as somehow secure, even though it's less secure than NFSv3, since NFSv3 at least requires the client to forge their ID
So "Yes" - a bad summary, and a stupid idea.
Right, so when you get a disease that people are irrationally afraid of and no one will hire you, then what?
You sue them, and they give you money for the rest of your life, just like you worked for them, but you don't have to come in and actually work?
What's the downside here?
I'm perfectly aware of this - "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." - which is what you're probably referring to..
Yes. This is exactly what I'm referring to.
However if your finger isn't too tired and you read the full act you'll see that it goes on to say "[the judge, jury etc] may draw such inferences from the failure as appear proper.
and then "Where the accused was at an authorised place of detention at the time of the failure, subsections (1) and (2) above do not apply if he had not been allowed an opportunity to consult a solicitor prior to being questioned, charged or informed as mentioned in subsection (1) above.]"
The problem occurs when you are question prior to being in an authorized place of detention, at which point you don't yet have the opportunity to consult your solicitor (and depending on the circumstances, I'd think you'd want a barrister, instead, except in countries like Canada, where all solicitors are barristers).
Basically they can question the shit out of you at the scene, and then they can do it more on the ride to the station, and they can do it more on their stop for doughnuts along the way, and they can do it without actually charging you, and later use your answer (if any) against you in court, if they later decide to prefer charges.
So, you get the "why do you care what you say, if you don't have anything to hide?" effect, even though the legal system is definitely adversarial as it is in the U.S.. The lack of a law whereby an individual can avoid self incrimination without consequence, as in the U.S. 5th amendment, from which the Miranda rights in the U.S. are derived, means that there's wiggle room for the police to play a little fast and loose with the rules. And if BBC News is to be believed, the police occasionally do.
Which, I guess, if the whole "why do you care, if you don't have anything to hide" is so ingrained in the UK psyche, I guess that's why you guys are so OK with the idea of ubiquitous surveillance and lack of privacy (but then again, now that you can enforce privacy after the fact with a "right to be forgotten", and your libel laws are such that no one can say anything speculative, such as "the alleged perpetrator was XXX" without fearing legal action, privacy up front might not be an issue for you.
PS: I think someone should monitor the "demands to be forgotten" and run a server which is extraterritorial to Europe to remember everything that people want forgotten about themselves, so that they can go screw themselves and their demands.
Didn't Chris Hansen of Dateline perfect this? He's made an entire career out of impersonating underage girls to get guys to show up some place so he can film them in his "To Catch a Predator" series.
So the people behind the competing standard... claim that the PMA devices won't work with "the vast majority" of devices that are out there, yet according to this article: http://bgr.com/2013/04/17/sams...
It's going to work with Samsung, HTC, Google, Blackberry, and LG devices.
What exactly are these "vast majority" Qi devices, and who is building the things, because it's not these guys...
Umm, what centuries are you referring to?
* 1776 - US Declaration of Independence
* 1787 - US Constitution Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
* 1790 - The Patent Act of 1790 was the first federal patent statute of the United States. It was titled "An Act to promote the Progress of Useful Arts."
I believe he meant the two centuries between 1776 and 1976, but if you want to wiggle on the 1790 being 14 years after 1776, since that's about the term of a patent, and you're OK with patent terms that long, then I'll call rounding it up to two centuries an OK thing to do...
If I'm watching a live TV program I need the network traffic carrying that program to get to me correctly, in real time, or watching the program live doesn't work.
Unless it's something you have a bet on, it doesn't matter if there is some latency, so long as you buffer in excess of the latency worth of data, so that it can hiccup all you want, and there will be a 1:1 match between the minutes of program sent, and the minutes required to play back. And even if you have a bet going, the window is pretty narrow, unless you are making bets in real time covering the next several seconds of action, where someone without the latency could leverage apriori knowledge of events to their advantage. But at that point, you'd be much better off paying for Gambler's Anonymous and other treatment, than you would be paying for lower latency on the video broadcast.
Taking a trip to outer space right now costs on the order of $10,000 /lb in rocket fuel alone, and for a 200 lb person that comes to like 2 million dollars, so it's really expensive to emigrate into space even if there were livable space stations and farmable areas, pace, you can get a lot of energy that you can convert into rocket fuel, and drop the price of taking a trip to space to something like an airplane ticket cost.
Falcon 9.1 costs are already $1867/lb, so you're off by a factor of over 5X, and the Falcon Heavy is on target for $709/lb, meaning you're off by a factor of 1X4 once that's up and running.
A DC-X would have had less of cost per lb than that, but really, who wants the average person with access to ceramic coated rebar having cheap access to space?
Is anyone so sure that this is a 'fiasco'?
It might be seen as some abstract fiaso of ethics in the USA, but that shit happened to people for real. Boston College screwed up, for sure, with a rather naive and slightly patronising project, but the rest is the law at work, in a way that it should work; uncovering truth and exposing wrongdoers to prosecution.
People have a right against self-incrimination. At least they do in the U.S.. I've heard what passes for "Miranda Rights" in the U.K., and you are effectively forced to incriminate yourself to assert an affirmative defense later. Basically, you have to make a decision up front, often without legal counsel, in order to be able to rely on the information in court later, should you choose that method of defense later.
The real question is whether or not Boston University was (A) capable of offering such guarantees, and (B) failed in honoring its obligations, and (C) was legally in the right to honor said obligations in the first place, when the information in question involved criminal matters.
The premise of this article is broken. Time locked crypto would not have prevented the disclosure, since the point of the disclosure was to allow the study of the situation now, not after everyone is dead. Even had all reverences to specific individuals been struck, the remaining documents, if disclosed, would have been enough to conduct traffic analysis, and haul in the major players for interviews.
Clearly, by sealing the records from the Warren Commission until 2039 (a term which was reduced based on the FOIA), but then redacting sections of the report, and then keeping the rest under seal until 2017 (it's not clear the redacted portions will be made public at that time, or remain redacted), the government has acknowledged that there are cases where obtaining, and then judicially time sealing it until a later date, serves the public interest.
The question in this case is why, given a similarly sensitive political subject, the information was not treated the same way.
The only difference seems to be that they didn't specifically have apriori involvement of judicial authority.
Yeah, it is not like the red planet has anything like iron.
OK, so we separate the iron out of the iron oxide, and use the iron as a building material, what are we supposed to do with all the extra oxygen, Mr. Smartypants, *breathe it* and *use it for fuel*?!?!
Oh... Wait...
Pretty sure MFN is part of GATT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... NAFTA, on the other hand, might pose a problem.
It is. But the (referenced in the original article) analysis by Joost Pauwelyn assumes that MFN treaty provisions regarding not imposing a tariff on China that we don't impose on ALL our other trading partners means that we would either habe to revoke MFN, so that doesn't apply, or change the GATT groundrules in the WTO.
And yeah, I believe your reading of NAFTA would apply to moving the final assembly factories for Chinese products to the Maquiladoras just over the U.S./Mexico border in order to place them into the free trade zone would work to circumvent any tarrifs we were to establish under GATT/WTO governance as modifications to MFN rules, and/or by revoking MFN status.
This is effectively what I was hinting at when I references the final assembly rules in the EU taking place in the Czech Republic: The NAFTA block of countries, for trade purposes, can be considered analogous to the EU block, except the NAFTA block countries do not enforce between themselves, and while they do enforce against externalities, unlike the EU, there's not a universal policy governing NAFTA block members.
There are actually several other available loopholes that are in common use in Europe, both for exporting taxes at a lower rate -- e.g. make all contracts in the lowest corporate tax country (Ireland), then export them through an EU country (Netherlands) to the Bahamas or other corporate banking friendly climate, since it's an EU member with no costs for doing so, due to its own existing treaties. These loopholes can just as easily be applied within NAFTA (and commonly are, to the extent to which they are applicable), to push the boundaries.
As it stands, however, unless it's done generally, which would hurt the partners who are our partners solely to give them economic aid in exchange for editorial control in some of their internal and external politics, we really can't do it with China given its existing trade status, and (given NAFTA), perhaps not eve were we to strip it of MFN status without political firestorms coming from that.
How about a tariff on a per capita basis? Especially if we can tax on the amount of resources consumed per person per year. If the cost is not tied to each individual's life style, some people in some countries would continue burning through their huge SUV, while asking everyone else to live a caveman's life.
Way to make "bombing them back to the stone age" a net economic benefit for the target, dude!
Your reading of GATT is not applicable. China falls under MFN, and tarrifs based on carbon emissions generally fall under "special interest protectionist measures", which means that they are not applicable.
In reality, implementing this would either require revocation of MFN status for China by the U.S., or modification to GATT. Modification to GATT would require a unanimous vote in the WTO, of which China has been a member since 11 Dec 2001, which means that a modification to GATT is off the table.
I've suggested that the way to deal with this, and with most of the job threat from offshoring, in fact, was to hold countries supplying products to the same standards that a domestic producer of those products would be held. That would include environmental, labor, and similar standards. This wouldn't address the economic inequity of people being to live for a lot less in China as on the same wages of the U.S., or that products manufactured for markets other than the U.S. market would necessarily meet U.S. standards either. But it would be a step in that direction.
To deal with any of the other loopholes, such as the "final assembly" loophole, where tarrifs aren't charged if the final assembly occurred within a given economic block, rather than in a foreign economic block (also called the "last major transformation" clause), would require even more work. So companies like Apple could still perform final assembly of Apple products in the Czech Republic, which, as an EU member, means not paying VAT import taxes compared to if they were wholly manufactured in China. Just as companies like GM do in the U.S. with regard to primary engine components for automobiles manufactured in Brazil.
Practically speaking, there's no way to get rid of all the loopholes without a One World Government(tm), which most people are against (especially the existing governments of nations which would be superseded by such a thing).
We may be driven there eventually, but we know the real solution to the carbon problem is to move to other sources capable of handling ever increasing base loads - and yeah, that doesn't mean hydroelectric, which endangers fish populations, or unreliable wind, or solar based on the available of solar grade silicon, relative to demand, being rather low.
OMG! Think of the children!
Won't someone, please, please, regulate these games so that I can know that San Jose is 18 minutes away because they are monitoring the FastTrak in places they said they wouldn't be monitoring the FastTrak, rather than reading an amusing sign for a good 5-10 seconds?
Or, you know, come up with a video game that espouses my socioreligious value system, but doesn't actually suck to play (you know, like my socioreligious value system), so that kids imitate that instead?
APPEAL FOR URGENT BUSINESS ASSISTANCE.
Dearest One,
Permit me to inform you of my desire of having a terrible wrong righted! I am quite aware that my message will come to you as a surprise because it is indeed very strange for someone you have not met before to contact you in this regard.
l am Judy Robert the only daughter of late Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Robert. My father was a very wealthy cocoa merchant in Abidjan here, the economic capital of Ivory Coast, he was poisoned to death by his only brother (My Uncle) and his business associates on one of their business meeting. My mother died on the 15th June 1991 and my father took me so special because l am motherless.
Before the death of my father on 21st December 2008 in a private hospital here in Abidjan, he secretly called me on his bedside, when I sat down to listen to him, he started crying, when I asked him why?
(1) He complained that I am too young to be managing my life with no one to take care of me,(2)That I have not finished my university education as he planned for me, he revealed to me that he has a sum of US$6.5 ,000,000.00(Six Million Five Hundred Thousand United State Dollars) left in a security company here in Abidjan, that he used my name as the only daughter for his next of kin in deposit of the funds in the box.
He also explained to me that it was because of this wealth that he was poisoned by his only brother (My Uncle) and his business associates, that l should stay away from them as they are evil he warned me seriously not associate with his brother that is my uncle, that I should seek for a God fearing foreign partner in a country of my choice where l will transfer this money and use it for proper investment purpose. Unfortunately, as I was attempting to contact people to aid in retrieving my inheritance, my father's only brother (My Uncle) and his business associates on one of their business meeting decided to besmirch my character and called me a scammer. Now I show up in all search results as a scammer and have no sane hope of achieving my rightful inheritance.
Dear, I am honorably seeking your assistance in the following ways:
(1) To help me by removing these bad search results about myself.
(2) To help me by giving search results advising me to invest the money in a good business. Like Real estate or Hotel Business.
(3) To giving search results on how to make arrangement for me to come over to your country to further my education and also to secure a resident permit in your country.
Moreover, Dear I am willing to offer you 15% of the total sum as compensation for your effort/ input after the successful removal of this bad search result to you. Furthermore, please indicate your options towards assisting me as I believe that this transaction would be conclude within seven (7) days you signify your interest to assist me. Email me on my email address for me to send more details to you.
judyrobert1759@
gmail.Com
Anticipating hearing from you urgently.
Thanks and God bless.
Yours Sincerely,
Judy Robert
240,000 jobs for robots?
Unlike you I'm not trying to be facetious.
The Guantanamo restrictions have been attached to the defense funding bills (every single year) and have wide support in congress. You suggest he veto the defense spending bill and refuse to budge and in the process accomplishes nothing except de-funding the military.
Yes. And say, specifically, why: "I'm trying to keep a promise I made to the American People".
Then the congress can scramble to remove the item for the bill, or pass it over his veto by the required 2/3rds majority, or they look unpatriotic.
There are two possible outcomes to this:
(1) If they remove the item, he wins, and looks like a strong president, and a hero for keeping his promise, and congress gets to look patriotic, and the only people who lose are the ones who want to keep GITMO open.
(2) If they pass it over his veto, he loses, and looks like a strong president, and a hero for trying to keep his promise, and congress looks like dicks who want to water-board everyone, only they haven't figured out how to do it in the U.S. legally (yet).
In the first one, we get to close GITMO and put the issue to rest.
In the second one, we have a president who now looks golden, his party looks golden by the reflected light, and the party not sitting in the reflected light looks like they are the ones who forced the passage, and the others only went along because defunding the DOD would be unpatriotic, and it was an emergency, so what could they do?
So basically, GITMO gets closed, or the republicans lose the next presidential election, and if whoever wins it isn't a total screwup, they lose the one after that.
It's elementary games theory.
So the fact that he didn't veto the thing and force the scenario to play out means that he either doesn't want GITMO closed, he has higher (undisclosed) priorities than keeping his campaign promise (through two elections) to the American People, or they have him by the short an curlies for some as yet undisclosed wrongdoing, and are in a posture of mutually assured destruction.
Again, it's elementary games theory.
I believe the ball is in your court, now?
I like how they conflate "minimum" and "living". The quoted councilman is doing it for effect, obviously, but it's not the same thing, and it won't be.
Jobs which currently exist, and are not worth paying for under the new wage will either go away, or become "sidework". This is how "sidework" started in the food service industries in the first place, after the minimum wage bumped to the point that it was no longer profitable enough to employ full time bus boys. It's why your tables don't get bussed by someone other than the waiter/waitress at even mid scale restaurants these days, and why in the higher end restaurants with bus staff, they tend to be paid out of shared tips from the wait staff at the lower end of high end places, or make minimum wage at the higher end.
Other jobs which are nice-but-not-strictly-necessary just won't get done. This is why your typical store owner doesn't have a kid washing down the sidewalk at the start of the day, and why the parking lot at the strip mall near your house looks like the inside of a dumpster, until the minimal cleaning work by local ordinance can be carried out by a street sweeper service that hits the parking lots of the local businesses as little as legally possible to get away with.
There will be jobs going away over this for sure. It will be interesting to watch how this plays out over time; I don't expect most other cities to be following this model, and I don't expect state adoption any time soon in Washington.
Obama did try to close Guantanamo Bay, Congress wrote a law forbidding it and included terms that he had to give congress 30 days notice before a single prisoner could be transferred so that congress could write a new law blocking it.
And then he signed it rather than vetoing it?
You're point was that his pen was not under his control at the time, or are you trying to make some other point?
Nuclear plants are on the way out in Japan and around the world anyway. Perhaps they could help disassemble nuclear plants?
Or disassemble the anti-nuclear activists?
So your basic point is that the US is deepest darkest totalitarian fascist Gulag state in the history of people. We don't actually have laws or courts.
Thanks for clearing that up. No, really, thanks.
Certainly not in history; Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn had some pretty strong arguments in favor of the former Soviet Union, and the dissident prisons in North Korea - if you're born there, you stay there - give even Hitler's Germany a run for its money.
On the other hand, we had a campaign promise from the current U.S. Administration to close down Guantanamo Bay, a prison which exists to grant the U.S. an extraterritoriality so that it can violate it's own laws with impunity, and I don't see it closed down yet.
It doesn't look that good...