'The irony of police objecting to GPS technology for privacy reasons is hard to miss in the aftermath of United States v. Jones,' says Woodrow Hartzog.
This isn't about saving money. This is about saving religion. I dare you to come up with a justification for research on evolution that satisfies the letter of this law to Republican congress-critters.
Yea, bull. It's probably more about stopping foolish spending on idiotic ideas. Like spending a million bucks on a study of how college students use "social media". Or $175,587 for a study on the link between cocaine and the mating habits of quail. Or The National Science Foundation awarded a $200,000 grant to study how the electorate reacts to political candidates‘ stances on climate change. I don't oppose research into climate change. But politicians should be using their own campaign funds to study how to talk about it - not taxpayer money.
Oh, well, the important stuff (other then the military) is done at the state and local level anyhow. Roads and schools and police and firefighting and so on can get by without a functional federal government (some would argue that's already the case).
Now what in the hell makes you think that state and more local accounts are less broke than the fed?
They're all of them either deeply in debt, or they rely on Federal money to keep the roads and schools and police running, or both.
Because taxation has become completely up-side-down. Note all the things that are used to justify higher taxes: Schools, Police, Emergency services, roads, etc. None of these are Federal government functions, they are all local or state functions. Yet the Federal government claims a far greater share of taxes than local and state governments. That's completely upside down. Most of your taxes should be going to local government, where you have the greatest control over how the government is run, and the least to the federal government, where you have the least control. In fact, the federal government has now become mostly deaf to the desires of the citizens.
Of course a lot of those federal dollars are returned to be spent at the local and state level, but the get re-allocated and come with (often very wrong-headed) strings attached. It's used as a way for the feds to control the states, since they were never given much authority under the Constitution. So they use money taken from the citizens as a carrot to control how the state governments operate.
Which would be a sufficient retort if all wages were spent the moment they were earnt, which opposes the very principle of capital.
Prices aren't rising that fast - this isn't the Weimar Republic. In fact, according to Paul Krugman, inflation is practically non-existent and the Fed should be expanding the money supply even faster.
Whether you agree with that idea or not, the way it's done by the Fed hurts the lowest earning workers the most, but you'll never hear Krugman admit such a thing.
It's funny because Friedman was far from laissez-faire and believed in central control of the money supply.
"Central control of the money supply" just means he favored central banks like the Federal Reserve and the ECB, not that he though some government bureaucracy should be in control of everybody's money. Friedman recognized that the free market was not perfect, but he recognized it as the best and most efficient system we have available.
And it's not "laissez-faire" to think that government has no business decided how much people get paid by private companies. It's just common sense capitalism. Not even a socialist idea, it's something only seen in dictatorships and communism. And Friedman was no Marxist.
Powerful people are using the Citizens United case
There is no such thing as "using" a court case. What they are using is their God-given right to speak freely. And whining about how they may be better at it than you are (for any reason whatsoever) is nothing but envy. You don't complain about people you agree with when they use their louder-than-most public speaking abilities. Not even when it's your own tax dollars used to influence public opinion.
It's better that way that allowing some compromised bureaucrat decide who gets to say what, and how, and when.
Interesting comment from an Anonymous Coward, and provably wrong. I think you would have to point to genuine transparency on the part of Russia. As to the danger of Russia compared to NSA, to start with, NSA doesn't have nuclear weapons aimed at NATO countries, Russia does, and that's not all. Russia has apparently continued the former Soviet practice of killing dissidents and defectors.
Maybe we should specify "dangerous to whom". Russia has had nuclear weapons aimed at other countries for half a century, and they are no closer to using them than they've ever been. The NSA's actions probably push nuclear countries into more desperation making the nuclear option more likely, not less, so in that regard they are certainly more dangerous. And of course Russia's government is more dangerous to its own citizens than anyone else (dissidents and defectors and the like), but that's true of every government in the world.
So you could say that Russia is a greater danger to some European countries than the NSA, but you would probably not win that argument with Angela Merkel.
But the real point is that the NSA is clearly a greater danger to people in the US than Russia, far greater. They can track and target anyone at any time, and there is evidence they have done so. They are making many countries in the world very angry at the US, Russia included. And don't lets forget that the NSA is not just some division of geeks with keyboards - they can mount a very capable armed response at any time. If someone in charge at the NSA decided to take out a target, no one would even question the orders until well after you're counting the bodies.
P.S. The "wading in water made man stand upright" is just as controversial because, although it may be a FACTOR, the impact of that factor is the crucial question. It may well be zero. It may well be quite a lot. But chances are that it's such a minuscule factor that it's not worth spouting off about compared to thousands of other factors.
While that may be true for the specific trait of upright walking, there is ample evidence that living on the beach or very close to salt or brackish water had a large impact on human evolution. Unique things like the lack of fur, a layer of subcutaneous fat, salty tears, etc., all point to evolutionary pressures associated with a familiarity with aquatic territories.
'You cannot be for a startup, high-tech economy and not be pro-bike,'
Especially since you can get taxpayer funding for your development using LEED "Gold Certification" grants, just for putting in a bunch of bike racks (and maybe some electric car charging stations, not that there's any significant need for them.
The "loophole" he's talking about is a private sale, which currently requires no backgroundcheck/FFL middleman. Some states require a FFL middleman/background check. You can go to a gun show and buy/sell to private individuals, as long as you aren't a "gun business".
I know what he was trying to refer to, but, again, it was completely wrong. The OP also claimed:
the 'gun show exemption' in federal law overrules state laws at gun show events, so even in states where background checks, waiting periods and registration are required for normal sales it's still possible to go to a gun show and avoid all that
Which is complete bullshit. States can require anything they want - there is no federal law that "overrules" background checks in any circumstance whatsoever.
Several state Constitutions guarantee the right to bear arms by including "...for the common defense", or "... for defense of themselves and the state," but anyone presenting to the Continental states an amendment that said their arms were exclusively for the defense of the State would have been lucky to have survived the encounter.
The rest of your post is so off it can't even be called revisionist history - it's more like speculative fiction.
Plus the seven all have loopholes - the 'gun show exemption' in federal law overrules state laws at gun show events, so even in states where background checks, waiting periods and registration are required for normal sales it's still possible to go to a gun show and avoid all that. It's usually done by people who just don't want to bother with the paperwork.
What a load of crap. There is no "exemption" for any gun sales, or places, or anything else.
Basically the Federal government licenses gun dealers. You cannot have a business selling guns without that license. If you're not a Federally licensed gun dealer or collector, you cannot sell (or even own) certain types of weapons, and you cannot sell ANY gun ANYWHERE, EVER without performing a background check on the buyer. Period. There is no "well if you're at a gun show you don't have to check" exemption or anything like it.
If you have an old gun you want to sell, and you're not a dealer, you can do that. You can also sell or give your gun to a family member or friend. That's the only "loophole" there is. These things don't require background check because you can't even perform one unless you have an FFL.
From what I've seen, most parents are either clueless or turn a blind eye to the fact that their kids are rotten little bastards.
Exactly, and that's the situation here. The parents were quoted on GMA this morning as claiming that there is no way their kid said that, and their Facebook account must have "been hacked". Total denial.
I disagree with putting that into the category of "right."
(Opinion) People are born with rights, rights can't (shouldn't anyway) be changed by law. Dictating wages by law is okay in theory. You aren't born with a God-given right to pay your workers slave wages in the way that you are born with the right to free speech. Society benefits from your right to free speech as a general rule, society does not benefit necessarily from your right to pay however little you want to.(/opinion)
There are three basic rights that most others are derived from - those being Life, Liberty, and Property. The US was the first country that actually recognized an individual right to property that did not depend on a king. The right to decide what your labor is worth, or what you are willing to pay for labor, flows from property rights. You own you, not anyone else.
In contrast, the central premise of socialism is that most private property should be confiscated by a central authority which will use that property to create a better society.
Go back to school... the central premise of socialism is that the government (the people, collective, whatever you call it) owns the means of production. Which, despite right-wing cries of distress, has not happened AT ALL under Obama.
Right - it's much more like Mussolini-style fascism, where the Corporations and Government form "partnerships", often with certain corporations given monopoly or defacto monopoly control in some markets.
Slashdot Mirror
'The irony of police objecting to GPS technology for privacy reasons is hard to miss in the aftermath of United States v. Jones,' says Woodrow Hartzog.
Exactly.
I don't film close-ups in real life. Or use bright halogen lights in the bedroom, either.
All we need is someone to start releasing porn in 4K format, and the 4K TVs will start flying off the shelves. :)
Nope, sorry, but there are NO porn stars that are that pretty. I don't want to actually SEE all those human flaws.
Why is spending a few thousand bucks on studying college students' useage of social media a Bad Thing?
Because I could have used that money to feed my family, you greedy bastard.
This isn't about saving money. This is about saving religion. I dare you to come up with a justification for research on evolution that satisfies the letter of this law to Republican congress-critters.
Yea, bull. It's probably more about stopping foolish spending on idiotic ideas. Like spending a million bucks on a study of how college students use "social media". Or $175,587 for a study on the link between cocaine and the mating habits of quail. Or The National Science Foundation awarded a $200,000 grant to study how the electorate reacts to political candidates‘ stances on climate change. I don't oppose research into climate change. But politicians should be using their own campaign funds to study how to talk about it - not taxpayer money.
Now what in the hell makes you think that state and more local accounts are less broke than the fed?
They're all of them either deeply in debt, or they rely on Federal money to keep the roads and schools and police running, or both.
Because taxation has become completely up-side-down. Note all the things that are used to justify higher taxes: Schools, Police, Emergency services, roads, etc. None of these are Federal government functions, they are all local or state functions. Yet the Federal government claims a far greater share of taxes than local and state governments. That's completely upside down. Most of your taxes should be going to local government, where you have the greatest control over how the government is run, and the least to the federal government, where you have the least control. In fact, the federal government has now become mostly deaf to the desires of the citizens.
Of course a lot of those federal dollars are returned to be spent at the local and state level, but the get re-allocated and come with (often very wrong-headed) strings attached. It's used as a way for the feds to control the states, since they were never given much authority under the Constitution. So they use money taken from the citizens as a carrot to control how the state governments operate.
Maybe they should start by requiring the military to demonstrate how everything it spends is in the 'National Interest'.
I think you'd lose a lot of pork.
Pretty sure you would see a very strong bi-partisan opposition to that quash it very quickly.
Which would be a sufficient retort if all wages were spent the moment they were earnt, which opposes the very principle of capital.
Prices aren't rising that fast - this isn't the Weimar Republic. In fact, according to Paul Krugman, inflation is practically non-existent and the Fed should be expanding the money supply even faster.
Whether you agree with that idea or not, the way it's done by the Fed hurts the lowest earning workers the most, but you'll never hear Krugman admit such a thing.
Which is central control of the money supply. Which determines the real value of any given wage.
Not really. It determines the value of wages in absolute terms, but not the relative value of wages to commodities, which is determined by the market.
It's funny because Friedman was far from laissez-faire and believed in central control of the money supply.
"Central control of the money supply" just means he favored central banks like the Federal Reserve and the ECB, not that he though some government bureaucracy should be in control of everybody's money. Friedman recognized that the free market was not perfect, but he recognized it as the best and most efficient system we have available.
And it's not "laissez-faire" to think that government has no business decided how much people get paid by private companies. It's just common sense capitalism. Not even a socialist idea, it's something only seen in dictatorships and communism. And Friedman was no Marxist.
There are plenty of ways to criticize Friedman's ideas, but mischaracterizing his beliefs is wrong.
"-1 Insightful"
opinion mod much?
Powerful people are using the Citizens United case
There is no such thing as "using" a court case. What they are using is their God-given right to speak freely. And whining about how they may be better at it than you are (for any reason whatsoever) is nothing but envy. You don't complain about people you agree with when they use their louder-than-most public speaking abilities. Not even when it's your own tax dollars used to influence public opinion.
It's better that way that allowing some compromised bureaucrat decide who gets to say what, and how, and when.
Interesting comment from an Anonymous Coward, and provably wrong. I think you would have to point to genuine transparency on the part of Russia. As to the danger of Russia compared to NSA, to start with, NSA doesn't have nuclear weapons aimed at NATO countries, Russia does, and that's not all. Russia has apparently continued the former Soviet practice of killing dissidents and defectors.
Maybe we should specify "dangerous to whom". Russia has had nuclear weapons aimed at other countries for half a century, and they are no closer to using them than they've ever been. The NSA's actions probably push nuclear countries into more desperation making the nuclear option more likely, not less, so in that regard they are certainly more dangerous. And of course Russia's government is more dangerous to its own citizens than anyone else (dissidents and defectors and the like), but that's true of every government in the world.
So you could say that Russia is a greater danger to some European countries than the NSA, but you would probably not win that argument with Angela Merkel.
But the real point is that the NSA is clearly a greater danger to people in the US than Russia, far greater. They can track and target anyone at any time, and there is evidence they have done so. They are making many countries in the world very angry at the US, Russia included. And don't lets forget that the NSA is not just some division of geeks with keyboards - they can mount a very capable armed response at any time. If someone in charge at the NSA decided to take out a target, no one would even question the orders until well after you're counting the bodies.
P.S. The "wading in water made man stand upright" is just as controversial because, although it may be a FACTOR, the impact of that factor is the crucial question. It may well be zero. It may well be quite a lot. But chances are that it's such a minuscule factor that it's not worth spouting off about compared to thousands of other factors.
While that may be true for the specific trait of upright walking, there is ample evidence that living on the beach or very close to salt or brackish water had a large impact on human evolution. Unique things like the lack of fur, a layer of subcutaneous fat, salty tears, etc., all point to evolutionary pressures associated with a familiarity with aquatic territories.
Especially since you can get taxpayer funding for your development using LEED "Gold Certification" grants, just for putting in a bunch of bike racks (and maybe some electric car charging stations, not that there's any significant need for them.
The "loophole" he's talking about is a private sale, which currently requires no backgroundcheck/FFL middleman. Some states require a FFL middleman/background check. You can go to a gun show and buy/sell to private individuals, as long as you aren't a "gun business".
I know what he was trying to refer to, but, again, it was completely wrong. The OP also claimed:
Which is complete bullshit. States can require anything they want - there is no federal law that "overrules" background checks in any circumstance whatsoever.
Cool story, bro. But it's just that, a story.
Several state Constitutions guarantee the right to bear arms by including "...for the common defense", or "... for defense of themselves and the state," but anyone presenting to the Continental states an amendment that said their arms were exclusively for the defense of the State would have been lucky to have survived the encounter.
The rest of your post is so off it can't even be called revisionist history - it's more like speculative fiction.
Plus the seven all have loopholes - the 'gun show exemption' in federal law overrules state laws at gun show events, so even in states where background checks, waiting periods and registration are required for normal sales it's still possible to go to a gun show and avoid all that. It's usually done by people who just don't want to bother with the paperwork.
What a load of crap. There is no "exemption" for any gun sales, or places, or anything else.
Basically the Federal government licenses gun dealers. You cannot have a business selling guns without that license. If you're not a Federally licensed gun dealer or collector, you cannot sell (or even own) certain types of weapons, and you cannot sell ANY gun ANYWHERE, EVER without performing a background check on the buyer. Period. There is no "well if you're at a gun show you don't have to check" exemption or anything like it.
If you have an old gun you want to sell, and you're not a dealer, you can do that. You can also sell or give your gun to a family member or friend. That's the only "loophole" there is. These things don't require background check because you can't even perform one unless you have an FFL.
Chelyabinsk-class? So would that be the size of a large elephant, an olympic-sized pool, or a football field?
From what I've seen, most parents are either clueless or turn a blind eye to the fact that their kids are rotten little bastards.
Exactly, and that's the situation here. The parents were quoted on GMA this morning as claiming that there is no way their kid said that, and their Facebook account must have "been hacked". Total denial.
However, they do already have health insurance through their employer (the federal government) just like I have insurance from my employer,
Except they have much better (platinum) coverage, and they don't kick in ANY part of the premium. You do.
I disagree with putting that into the category of "right." (Opinion) People are born with rights, rights can't (shouldn't anyway) be changed by law. Dictating wages by law is okay in theory. You aren't born with a God-given right to pay your workers slave wages in the way that you are born with the right to free speech. Society benefits from your right to free speech as a general rule, society does not benefit necessarily from your right to pay however little you want to.(/opinion)
There are three basic rights that most others are derived from - those being Life, Liberty, and Property. The US was the first country that actually recognized an individual right to property that did not depend on a king. The right to decide what your labor is worth, or what you are willing to pay for labor, flows from property rights. You own you, not anyone else.
Go back to school... the central premise of socialism is that the government (the people, collective, whatever you call it) owns the means of production. Which, despite right-wing cries of distress, has not happened AT ALL under Obama.
Right - it's much more like Mussolini-style fascism, where the Corporations and Government form "partnerships", often with certain corporations given monopoly or defacto monopoly control in some markets.
Supposedly, and I have no proof of this other than innuendo, Verizon was using the FIOS roll out as a bargaining chip for spectrum space from Comcast.
I heard the same thing from a Verizon technician.
How could the Federal government be the cause of slavery if slavery existed before the Federal government.
In the same way you are responsible for being a compliant little useful idiot, even though compliant little useful idiots existed before you did.