amnesty for illegals is a constitutional power to overturn a criminal conviction.
Overturning a conviction REQUIRES A CONVICTION. A blanket statement that not only will there BE no prosecutions for a crime but that the crime itself is no longer a crime is much more than a pardon.
for ACA, read the law. most of them...
I'm not going to waste time reading the entire ACA, and I'm not sure why you refer to "most of them" when I'm referring to a specific law. A law which had a mandate for employer coverage that was unilaterally changed by the executive branch after the law was passed.
and go read your own link. unfunded mandates are laws passed by congress
You clearly didn't read the link. Quote:
Forms of unfunded mandates
An "intergovernmental mandate" generally refers to the responsibilities or activities that one level of government imposes on another by constitutional, legislative, executive or judicial action.[11] According to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), an intergovernmental mandate can take various forms:
. An enforceable duty-this refers to any type of legislation, statute or regulation that either requires or proscribes an action of state or local governments,...
Pretty clear -- and it clearly contradicts your ridiculous claim that "every program has to be funded by law", since "unfunded mandates" can also be created through legislation. You even now admit that unfunded mandates can be created by congress passing laws.
The meaning of "free" from the government is obvious to everyone.
No, sadly, it is not. That's the problem. De Toqueville covered this a long time ago. Even if you assume (an unjustified assumption, I fear) that people do know the true meaning, the fact that they simply don't care that others are paying for it makes the problem just as bad.
This has nothing to do with AOL disks, and yes, ignoring the difference between "somebody" and "something" is significantly more pedantic than any statement that a "free" two years at a CC really isn't free. The main reason "AOL disks" are irrelevant to this is because "AOL disks" are not taxpayer funded, they are voluntarily paid for by AOL out of the profits they make from people who use AOL by their own choice.
When the government extorts money from some people to pay for other people's "free" stuff, the word "free" is being misused in a significant and important way. Trying to handwave the problem away by claiming that even sunlight isn't free because some poor hydrogen atoms had to die is just ridiculous.
Here's some new content: we're already facing the issue of requiring remedial basic math and English classes for incoming university freshmen. Imagine how much worse it will be when those who are passed out of the high schools just to get rid of them start appearing on the doorsteps of the local CC demanding their "free" education. Remedial remedial math, anyone?
It helps to solve the student loan problem by having the first 2 years paid for, essentially halving the cost of a 4-year degree.
Everyone could already make quite a dent in the cost of their college educations if they went to CC for the first two years now. You don't even have to make it free for it to have a significant impact on the price of a bachelor degree.
Plus it could help churn out more trades professionals (HVAC, plumbers, welders, etc.)
If your grades are good enough to take advantage of this, then you aren't going to want to settle for being a plumber looking for work when you get done.
because EO's have to follow the law and president's can't write them at will.
Really? So the executive order that unilaterally modified the ACA to defer corporate compliance with insurance mandates was "follow[ing] the law"? The executive orders that deal with amnesty for illegal aliens are "follow[ing] the law" with regard to legal immigration? The claim that he's going to use Executive Orders to get what he wants done until the congress sends him legislation doing what he likes is "follow[ing] the law"?
...there would be no funding for it since all funding bills originate in the House of Representatives and every program has to be funded by law.
Look up the phrase "unfunded mandate" and keep in mind that community colleges are state or local operations funded at the state or local level.
By the way, when this EO for free college gets signed, you should visit a local CC. Plurals do not get apostrophes.
How many innocent Hydrogen atoms died to light your day? Something had to pay, even for sunlight.
You've taken pedantry to an entirely new level. Maybe it's you can't understand the difference between "somebody" and "something". Or you don't care.
It's time more people realized that when the government uses the term "free" it truly is a lie, and the word should be reserved to actually mean something instead of being turned into useless filler to keep the politician's lips moving during sound bites.
Scholarships are one thing, but when you give free tuition to everybody, the rich don't pay when they could afford to and the working poor wind up having to pay more taxes
I was going to comment on the fact that a large proportion of the poor pay no income taxes and thus won't pay more because of this. Then I remembered that local community colleges are funded through property taxes and so, until the property tax rate is increased or a levy is passed to cover it, nobody will be paying extra for this. And since it is property taxes, the cost of the tax will be proportional to the value of the property. Poorer people will pay less extra when the rate is increased than the rich will.
I suspect that this "free education" will either be yet another unfunded mandate on the states, or paid for by federal income tax increases where the poorest already pay nothing.
What I want to know is what he means by "work for it". What work will these students have to perform to get this "free" education?
The fact that we accept something won't pass despite it being universally wanted by "the people"
Citation required. "Universally wanted" is a pretty strong statement considering that the vast majority of the people don't know what the problem is, much less that there is a problem.
And when the "problem" can be described as "network provider asks a commercial data source to help pay for upgrading the network connection that the commercial data source is filling up at a profit for the commercial data source", it's not going to be considered a problem this law would help instead of hinder, by many people. "Wait, you mean my ISP can't ask XYZ to help pay for upgrades to a network connection that XYZ is profiting from? I have to pay more so other people can do something I have no interest in?"
Even Windows has implemented NTP (albeit a crappy implementation that's "only" good to within a second or two) by default for more than a decade now.
The default for Windows 7 (non-domain) is to update once a week, and I routinely found my PVR system off by a minute or more. There is a way to change the update interval but you either need to download a special program to make the changes or edit the registry by hand.
The higher refraction index means that you don't need as sharp a curve (and,The higher refraction index means that you don't need as sharp a curve (and, thus thickness) to achieve the needed focus correction.
The downside to high refractive index is higher chromatic aberration and more flare. The former means that things you aren't looking through the center of the lens at have colored edges. The latter is... think of the annoying distractions during all of the bridge scenes in the new Star Trek movies.
I let the optometrist talk me into two sets of glasses -- both progressives -- the last time I got new ones. I really hated them, and I still don't like them very much. One has a band of far at the top, monitor-distance in the middle, and a band of reading at the bottom. The other is reading at the bottom third, far for the rest. When I forget to change to my "normal" glasses (the latter) when I leave work, I'm miserable.
There should always be an aura of alertness, readiness where this is concerned, period. If you don't, the enemy will penetrate your defences and do massive damage.
If the enemy has breached the defenses of, say, Fort Gordon, GA where you are employed as a hacker/contractor, then the massive damage has already happened and the M16 (which wasn't assigned to the hacker anyway) isn't going to change the result.
I disagree with your assessment that it wouldn't help much.
As someone who has worked in a secure comm facility and been TDA to Ft. Gordon and a couple other military facilities, I can assure you the by the time I could shoot at the bad guys the combat would have been over. The only reason I was trained to use weapons was because I could have taken a different duty assignment -- something that a contractor hired to do a specific job wouldn't be expected to do.
That's the funny part - you never know where you're going to wind up.
Sitting in a datacenter on a military base in the continental US means you can be pretty confident that you're not going to be in a combat zone. If you are, then something has already gone horribly wrong and a hacker being able to field strip an M16 isn't going to help much.
they send a few of us and our jets to Howard AFB, and that's where a young kid with a uniform and a multimeter discovered that Panama is a really, really tiny country.
You mean as a weapon system support technician you were deployed with that weapon system to a foreign country where there was active combat? Uhhh, and you couldn't forsee a need for your specialty at a place where the weapons you maintained were based?
While the operation was short and sweet, the odds of sent to some war zone isn't as remote as it seems.
For someone who uses or maintains weapon systems, of course it isn't unlikely you'll be going where the combat is. But, despite the nonsense portrayed in the ridiculous "hacker" TV show called "Scorpion", the likelyhood of a bunch of untrained computer mega-genius hackers being sent into a war zone is null. Stop believing everything you see on TV, especially on prime-time dreck intended for a mass audience.
We already bring civilians into it. They're called "contractors".
why not letters of marque
Because military actions are not supposed to be acts of individual reprisal conducted by private citizens, they're conducted by a government. We would assume that the intended cyber-target had not personally targeted the "hacker" being employed to attack that target, so there would be no personal reprisal to start with.
The HP-25 calculator (maybe it was the 45) had a manufacturer-recommended procedure for users to try before sending their failed devices in for repair. I can't find a reference online, but as I recall, it was "slap the back of the calculator against a book two or three times, then grasp the top and bottom of the calculator and twist it." This was a way of repairing intermittent inter-board connections without opening it up.
All language, as an artificial construct representing ideas and not being the ideas or things itself, is based on consensus. "What sequence of noises shall we make to represent the object of that brown furry large thing there? b-a-er? All in favor say aye." The abstraction then moves a level up - 'ah-ni-mul'. 'Mah-mul'. 'Sentient'. 'Eee-goh'. 'Id'.
Nobody has yet seen a "black hole", but astrophysicists have a good idea what they are, and mathematicians can chat about "string theory" without having seen these mythical strings. I.e., the fact that language is a consensus created by humans does not prohibit the existence of things to which words have been applied that are not fully understood, or that can be fully understood. It was a long time before "star" was as fully understood as it is today, and aether is still a concept despite it not being what we thought it was when the word was coined.
I'm curious as to why the broadcasters were given any voice over the sale.
I would think that the court would allow any sale to go through that would maximize the funds available to pay off Aereo's creditors,
While conspiracy theories are common for/., it is more likely that the low-ball bids will come from groups who want to set up competition without spending a lot of money, or to just get a lot of cheap hardware for other uses. The veto is to allow the people who are owed the money to keep the sale price reasonable, not to guarantee that they themselves can buy it for $1. I.e., it is intended to maximize the funds, not minimize them.
You are clearly doing your best to mis-interpret literally everything I typed. Helpful tips:
Here's my helpful tip to you: write accurate statements and don't try to pretend there are multiple meanings for the phrase "cabin pressure stabilizes" or "closest airport". And then when you get caught in multiple mistakes in one posting, don't try killing the messenger, use it as a reminder to preview what you write before you submit.
Presumably we're talking about a very light cannon here, otherwise it'd exceed the passenger's carry on weight allowance, which is usually about 20-30 pounds.
I have never once had my carry-on weighed. And once I carried on about 40 pounds specifically so I could meet the 50 pound checked limit.
And if someone accidentally forgets to check in their weapons then they can be politely reminded that they need to do so and have their bags sent to check-in instead of having their property confiscated.
You want a TSA officer in the security checkpoint line having enough discretion to try to differentiate between someone who actually forgot he had a weapon and someone who is trying to sneak one past because he wants to use it on board? How many attempts should someone get to sneak a gun through the line so he can finally succeed when it isn't detected? If all that happens when he's caught is the gun is politely handed back to him and he's told to go to check it, what stops him from trying again, and again?
That was GP's whole point: anybody stupid enough (or forgetful enough) to try to carry something like this onto a plane just isn't much of a threat.
What is the point of this argument? Are you saying that it's ok to allow people to carry guns onto a plane because those who forget to check their weapons aren't much of a threat? Are you saying that TSA agents who paw through your carry-on should be making judgement calls to differentiate between those who were just too stupid or forgetful to check a gun and those who are saying they forgot to check it when caught? I don't know why it matters if some people could be forgetful or stupid in this matter.
What difference should it make in the process?
If you put enough holes in the plane, then the pilot will have to descend until the cabin pressure stabilizes.
No, he'll have to descend until it reaches a partial pressure of oxygen that will not kill anyone. You can have a "stabilized" cabin pressure of "very low" at 35,000 feet, but once the short-term oxy generators run out people will be passing out and some may die.
And if the holes are in the pilot and co-pilot, and they're behind a locked door, you'll eventually descend until ground level.
Of course since there is an in-flight emergency, hel'' be descending for a landing at the nearest airport anyway.
Really? The aircraft is still flying, the cabin pressure has "stabilized", and there may be casualties, so he'll choose to land at the 5000 foot asphalt strip that's 2 miles away instead of going 30 or even 300 miles to a larger airport with on-site emergency facilities? "Closest" is not always "right" just because there is an emergency.
Slashdot Mirror
amnesty for illegals is a constitutional power to overturn a criminal conviction.
Overturning a conviction REQUIRES A CONVICTION. A blanket statement that not only will there BE no prosecutions for a crime but that the crime itself is no longer a crime is much more than a pardon.
for ACA, read the law. most of them...
I'm not going to waste time reading the entire ACA, and I'm not sure why you refer to "most of them" when I'm referring to a specific law. A law which had a mandate for employer coverage that was unilaterally changed by the executive branch after the law was passed.
and go read your own link. unfunded mandates are laws passed by congress
You clearly didn't read the link. Quote:
Pretty clear -- and it clearly contradicts your ridiculous claim that "every program has to be funded by law", since "unfunded mandates" can also be created through legislation. You even now admit that unfunded mandates can be created by congress passing laws.
Remedial what?
The meaning of "free" from the government is obvious to everyone.
No, sadly, it is not. That's the problem. De Toqueville covered this a long time ago. Even if you assume (an unjustified assumption, I fear) that people do know the true meaning, the fact that they simply don't care that others are paying for it makes the problem just as bad.
This has nothing to do with AOL disks, and yes, ignoring the difference between "somebody" and "something" is significantly more pedantic than any statement that a "free" two years at a CC really isn't free. The main reason "AOL disks" are irrelevant to this is because "AOL disks" are not taxpayer funded, they are voluntarily paid for by AOL out of the profits they make from people who use AOL by their own choice.
When the government extorts money from some people to pay for other people's "free" stuff, the word "free" is being misused in a significant and important way. Trying to handwave the problem away by claiming that even sunlight isn't free because some poor hydrogen atoms had to die is just ridiculous.
Here's some new content: we're already facing the issue of requiring remedial basic math and English classes for incoming university freshmen. Imagine how much worse it will be when those who are passed out of the high schools just to get rid of them start appearing on the doorsteps of the local CC demanding their "free" education. Remedial remedial math, anyone?
It helps to solve the student loan problem by having the first 2 years paid for, essentially halving the cost of a 4-year degree.
Everyone could already make quite a dent in the cost of their college educations if they went to CC for the first two years now. You don't even have to make it free for it to have a significant impact on the price of a bachelor degree.
Plus it could help churn out more trades professionals (HVAC, plumbers, welders, etc.)
If your grades are good enough to take advantage of this, then you aren't going to want to settle for being a plumber looking for work when you get done.
because EO's have to follow the law and president's can't write them at will.
Really? So the executive order that unilaterally modified the ACA to defer corporate compliance with insurance mandates was "follow[ing] the law"? The executive orders that deal with amnesty for illegal aliens are "follow[ing] the law" with regard to legal immigration? The claim that he's going to use Executive Orders to get what he wants done until the congress sends him legislation doing what he likes is "follow[ing] the law"?
...there would be no funding for it since all funding bills originate in the House of Representatives and every program has to be funded by law.
Look up the phrase "unfunded mandate" and keep in mind that community colleges are state or local operations funded at the state or local level.
By the way, when this EO for free college gets signed, you should visit a local CC. Plurals do not get apostrophes.
How many innocent Hydrogen atoms died to light your day? Something had to pay, even for sunlight.
You've taken pedantry to an entirely new level. Maybe it's you can't understand the difference between "somebody" and "something". Or you don't care.
It's time more people realized that when the government uses the term "free" it truly is a lie, and the word should be reserved to actually mean something instead of being turned into useless filler to keep the politician's lips moving during sound bites.
Scholarships are one thing, but when you give free tuition to everybody, the rich don't pay when they could afford to and the working poor wind up having to pay more taxes
I was going to comment on the fact that a large proportion of the poor pay no income taxes and thus won't pay more because of this. Then I remembered that local community colleges are funded through property taxes and so, until the property tax rate is increased or a levy is passed to cover it, nobody will be paying extra for this. And since it is property taxes, the cost of the tax will be proportional to the value of the property. Poorer people will pay less extra when the rate is increased than the rich will.
I suspect that this "free education" will either be yet another unfunded mandate on the states, or paid for by federal income tax increases where the poorest already pay nothing.
What I want to know is what he means by "work for it". What work will these students have to perform to get this "free" education?
The fact that we accept something won't pass despite it being universally wanted by "the people"
Citation required. "Universally wanted" is a pretty strong statement considering that the vast majority of the people don't know what the problem is, much less that there is a problem.
And when the "problem" can be described as "network provider asks a commercial data source to help pay for upgrading the network connection that the commercial data source is filling up at a profit for the commercial data source", it's not going to be considered a problem this law would help instead of hinder, by many people. "Wait, you mean my ISP can't ask XYZ to help pay for upgrades to a network connection that XYZ is profiting from? I have to pay more so other people can do something I have no interest in?"
There is already a service running that deals with time. Why should I schedule another one to do the same thing?
Even Windows has implemented NTP (albeit a crappy implementation that's "only" good to within a second or two) by default for more than a decade now.
The default for Windows 7 (non-domain) is to update once a week, and I routinely found my PVR system off by a minute or more. There is a way to change the update interval but you either need to download a special program to make the changes or edit the registry by hand.
ASN.1 is exactly what the name says,
What, the first version of ASN?
I'm going to wait for them to work the bugs out of the first eight versions, then I'm going to jump right on the ASN.9 programming bandwagon.
The higher refraction index means that you don't need as sharp a curve (and,The higher refraction index means that you don't need as sharp a curve (and, thus thickness) to achieve the needed focus correction.
The downside to high refractive index is higher chromatic aberration and more flare. The former means that things you aren't looking through the center of the lens at have colored edges. The latter is ... think of the annoying distractions during all of the bridge scenes in the new Star Trek movies.
I let the optometrist talk me into two sets of glasses -- both progressives -- the last time I got new ones. I really hated them, and I still don't like them very much. One has a band of far at the top, monitor-distance in the middle, and a band of reading at the bottom. The other is reading at the bottom third, far for the rest. When I forget to change to my "normal" glasses (the latter) when I leave work, I'm miserable.
There should always be an aura of alertness, readiness where this is concerned, period. If you don't, the enemy will penetrate your defences and do massive damage.
If the enemy has breached the defenses of, say, Fort Gordon, GA where you are employed as a hacker/contractor, then the massive damage has already happened and the M16 (which wasn't assigned to the hacker anyway) isn't going to change the result.
I disagree with your assessment that it wouldn't help much.
As someone who has worked in a secure comm facility and been TDA to Ft. Gordon and a couple other military facilities, I can assure you the by the time I could shoot at the bad guys the combat would have been over. The only reason I was trained to use weapons was because I could have taken a different duty assignment -- something that a contractor hired to do a specific job wouldn't be expected to do.
That's the funny part - you never know where you're going to wind up.
Sitting in a datacenter on a military base in the continental US means you can be pretty confident that you're not going to be in a combat zone. If you are, then something has already gone horribly wrong and a hacker being able to field strip an M16 isn't going to help much.
they send a few of us and our jets to Howard AFB, and that's where a young kid with a uniform and a multimeter discovered that Panama is a really, really tiny country.
You mean as a weapon system support technician you were deployed with that weapon system to a foreign country where there was active combat? Uhhh, and you couldn't forsee a need for your specialty at a place where the weapons you maintained were based?
While the operation was short and sweet, the odds of sent to some war zone isn't as remote as it seems.
For someone who uses or maintains weapon systems, of course it isn't unlikely you'll be going where the combat is. But, despite the nonsense portrayed in the ridiculous "hacker" TV show called "Scorpion", the likelyhood of a bunch of untrained computer mega-genius hackers being sent into a war zone is null. Stop believing everything you see on TV, especially on prime-time dreck intended for a mass audience.
If you're willing to bring civilians into it,
We already bring civilians into it. They're called "contractors".
why not letters of marque
Because military actions are not supposed to be acts of individual reprisal conducted by private citizens, they're conducted by a government. We would assume that the intended cyber-target had not personally targeted the "hacker" being employed to attack that target, so there would be no personal reprisal to start with.
How about an entirely different branch of service then?
Why not deal with it the way we already deal with such things: contractors? We already hire non-combatant talent in other areas, why not this?
The HP-25 calculator (maybe it was the 45) had a manufacturer-recommended procedure for users to try before sending their failed devices in for repair. I can't find a reference online, but as I recall, it was "slap the back of the calculator against a book two or three times, then grasp the top and bottom of the calculator and twist it." This was a way of repairing intermittent inter-board connections without opening it up.
But hey, the word has a meaning.
Only by consensus...
All language, as an artificial construct representing ideas and not being the ideas or things itself, is based on consensus. "What sequence of noises shall we make to represent the object of that brown furry large thing there? b-a-er? All in favor say aye." The abstraction then moves a level up - 'ah-ni-mul'. 'Mah-mul'. 'Sentient'. 'Eee-goh'. 'Id'.
Nobody has yet seen a "black hole", but astrophysicists have a good idea what they are, and mathematicians can chat about "string theory" without having seen these mythical strings. I.e., the fact that language is a consensus created by humans does not prohibit the existence of things to which words have been applied that are not fully understood, or that can be fully understood. It was a long time before "star" was as fully understood as it is today, and aether is still a concept despite it not being what we thought it was when the word was coined.
Or a return to the bad old days of "Best viewed with $browser" plastered over web pages.
When did those bad old days go away?
I'm curious as to why the broadcasters were given any voice over the sale. I would think that the court would allow any sale to go through that would maximize the funds available to pay off Aereo's creditors,
While conspiracy theories are common for /., it is more likely that the low-ball bids will come from groups who want to set up competition without spending a lot of money, or to just get a lot of cheap hardware for other uses. The veto is to allow the people who are owed the money to keep the sale price reasonable, not to guarantee that they themselves can buy it for $1. I.e., it is intended to maximize the funds, not minimize them.
You are clearly doing your best to mis-interpret literally everything I typed. Helpful tips:
Here's my helpful tip to you: write accurate statements and don't try to pretend there are multiple meanings for the phrase "cabin pressure stabilizes" or "closest airport". And then when you get caught in multiple mistakes in one posting, don't try killing the messenger, use it as a reminder to preview what you write before you submit.
Presumably we're talking about a very light cannon here, otherwise it'd exceed the passenger's carry on weight allowance, which is usually about 20-30 pounds.
I have never once had my carry-on weighed. And once I carried on about 40 pounds specifically so I could meet the 50 pound checked limit.
And if someone accidentally forgets to check in their weapons then they can be politely reminded that they need to do so and have their bags sent to check-in instead of having their property confiscated.
You want a TSA officer in the security checkpoint line having enough discretion to try to differentiate between someone who actually forgot he had a weapon and someone who is trying to sneak one past because he wants to use it on board? How many attempts should someone get to sneak a gun through the line so he can finally succeed when it isn't detected? If all that happens when he's caught is the gun is politely handed back to him and he's told to go to check it, what stops him from trying again, and again?
That was GP's whole point: anybody stupid enough (or forgetful enough) to try to carry something like this onto a plane just isn't much of a threat.
What is the point of this argument? Are you saying that it's ok to allow people to carry guns onto a plane because those who forget to check their weapons aren't much of a threat? Are you saying that TSA agents who paw through your carry-on should be making judgement calls to differentiate between those who were just too stupid or forgetful to check a gun and those who are saying they forgot to check it when caught? I don't know why it matters if some people could be forgetful or stupid in this matter. What difference should it make in the process?
In both cases, don't bother buying flares or starter caps; all you need is the appropriate suitcase, gun case, and lock.
All you need is ammunition. Buy a cheap box of 22 or shotgun shells.
Implied is that they will not be able to take anything out of the luggage, while you are watching them.
I don't know why you think that is implied. I think you infer it incorrectly.
If you put enough holes in the plane, then the pilot will have to descend until the cabin pressure stabilizes.
No, he'll have to descend until it reaches a partial pressure of oxygen that will not kill anyone. You can have a "stabilized" cabin pressure of "very low" at 35,000 feet, but once the short-term oxy generators run out people will be passing out and some may die.
And if the holes are in the pilot and co-pilot, and they're behind a locked door, you'll eventually descend until ground level.
Of course since there is an in-flight emergency, hel'' be descending for a landing at the nearest airport anyway.
Really? The aircraft is still flying, the cabin pressure has "stabilized", and there may be casualties, so he'll choose to land at the 5000 foot asphalt strip that's 2 miles away instead of going 30 or even 300 miles to a larger airport with on-site emergency facilities? "Closest" is not always "right" just because there is an emergency.