Challenging the data collection is challenging the data.
Aye. This. Data collected improperly is not valid data. End of story.
The data is only as trustworthy as the researcher who collected it, and the sort of people who go into climate science research...
You don't need to go as far as besmirching the reputations of those who take the data. That's what the zealots on the AGW bandwagon like to do, and that's wrong. It is insulting when they do it, it's insulting when it happens to them. The only difference is they don't recognize how insulting it is when they do it, but scream like stuck pigs when it is turned back onto them.
It can be as simple as a mistake in a model that is the basis for some remote sensing measurement, or an error in the process that wasn't recognized. It can be an invalid assumption that was made completely innocently. It can be a simple miscommunication between the people who collect the data and the scientist who uses it. (Once upon a time, I had a scientist come to me looking at the data we'd collected, trying to pull information out at 1kHz, and I'd put a 100Hz low pass filter on the sensor. Oh, crap, you wanted that stuff I thought was noise? Oops. Try again.)
Several years ago, there was a paper from a team of remote sensing scientists who showed that the algorithms for converting the satellite measurements into surface temperature were wrong. They were getting a deterministic error in the answers. (This also shows the difference between DATA and the interpretation of that data. The DATA was right, the interpretation was wrong. The data can also be wrong, but that's a different kind of error.)
The correlation that the temperatures started going up when such and such a level of CO2 was reached, or at the beginning of the heavy industrial era, is DATA. It is the interpretation of this data that turns it into proof that one caused the other that is questionable.
When you can't come up with actual science to refute the findings all you are left with is tearing down the other side.
Yes, like "ignore that man's research, it was funded by an oil company and his opinion was bought".
The only ones talking about religion and heretics are those opposed to the findings of climate science.
Well, the ones who have recognized the zealous claims that "humans are the cause" based on correlation and not causation as "religion" are the only ones who would call that position "religious". The ones who claim that AGW is irrefutable fact and there can be no more debate are unlikley to recognize their own position as based on faith and lack of scientific rigor. "We're scientists, god damn it, and we know! How dare you question our data or interpretations thereof."
You're right. You meant it as an insult, but you are quite correct nonetheless, and show the double-edged sword nature of pointing fingers like that.
The most angering thing about this issue is that those who dare question the evidence for AGW are branded as "climage change deniers", even though they are only questioning the evidence for a possible cause and not climate change as a whole. Then the name calling starts -- and nothing advances. The AGW zealots (and those who have picked up the issue as a way of furthering their own political or economic agendae) start frothing at the mouth and jumping up and down and pointing at all the "deniers" who are obvious morons because they can't see what is happening right in front of their own eyes. Or they start pointing the finger at research that dissagrees with theirs but cannot be right because of who paid for it, ignoring that they are getting money to study a problem -- and if there is no problem the money would go elsewhere. It truly is the frothers who are unable to see what the other side is saying and need to stop painting the rest of the world into "us" and "them" black and white.
Summary: if someone says to you "AGW is a fact", and then you ask for the proof, if the best they can give you is correlations and not experimental proof, and if all they give you is the stink eye and start calling you names and insulting you for not accepting their word on the matter, THEY are the problem, and THEY need to do something else for a living. Yes, that means a scientist may need to explain the problem more than once. That's part of the process. You don't think that Einstein gave one lecture on relativity and then told everyone after that "I've explained it already, you're a moron for not believing me because I'm Einstein and you aren't..." do you?
Un no if you are on Linux you are using Linux. Linux doesn't have a "server" version.
Ummm, well, almost. If I recall correctly, and this was a year ago now, I ran into Ubuntu server vs. workstation distribution issues on a system I was installing that needed qualities of both. Maybe it was Debian. I don't remember which one, I just remember finding out that a lot of what I needed wasn't in the disto I was using.
I'd also consider some of the light distros that are intended for servers and not workstations.
I know, that's a distribtion and not "Linux" as a whole, but I think it's close enough to count.
I wonder if there would be benefit to making antibiotics that are combined with an opiate painkiller. The drugs would only be available to be taken at a hospital or clinic. The patient would need the painkiller, but returning for their antibiotic would reward them with the opiate. The final few days of antibiotic would have progressively smaller opiate doses to wind them down.
Hmmm. So you'd require anyone taking antibiotics to become in-patients at the local hospital? They wouldn't be able to legally drive there, perhaps more than once a day, because they'd be under the influence.
Why would they require a painkiller? I've had infections that didn't result in much, if any, pain.
You want to "wind them down" at the end. Just how hooked would you expect someone to get with just three days of treatement? You're trying to force people to take the entire course of treatment, but the same people who would stop after three days when getting pills to take at home will stop after two days if they have to take time off work every day to drive to a hospital to get a pill.
"full social services" being in quotes is interesting, seeing how it's a phrase I didn't use.
Look up "scare quotes".
The point I was making is that even where US government does provide social services, they are usually not sufficient to actually meet the need.
And my point is, so what? They aren't supposed to be doing it, so the fact that they aren't doing it is irrelevant.
In this particular case, we're talking about military morale. It's insane that we rely on a private charity to take care of this (and USO isn't the only one.. cf Operation Bedding, etc).
No, it isn't insane that we rely on a charity to do charity work. That's what charities are for. I would rather have the USO doing the job it does than having the military actually pay the going rates for entertainers and their entourages to go visit the troops. It would be insane to have the military renting the space and paying staff to be at every airport when they already have space and staff at the local bases.
Having the USO do it means everyone wins. The troops get the benefits. The people who volunteer and donate get the benefits. The entertainers get lots of good press and rep points.
Do YOU want to increase the military budget to provide the USO services? Do you think such increases would survive any stringent budget cuts?
How about the charity operations that do things like provide Christmas packages and messages from home to troops that are deployed? Should those packages be coming from someone in the military instead? "Dear soldier, thanks for serving, here's a cookie. Signed, Col. Joe Smith, Commander, Military Troop Morale Command Eastern Division. MTMCEDIV -- we care because we're paid to care!"
The attitudes of 1900 are not relevant in any way.
They demonstrate the modern abberation that is being accepted as "the way things should be", when they weren't always that way and nobody thought they should be.
Don't you have to be convicted of actually committing an illegal act though? Otherwise, the police just stole your car.
Google "civil asset forfeiture". The car is guilty of the act, it is being punished by being confiscated. It's a civil case, so the level of proof is "preponderance of the evidence" only, and the proof lies with the car owner to get it back.
Oh, I think I know what you're missing... in the US the government rarely fully does the job (never, when it comes to social services) and therefore we rely on private charities to pick up the slack.
I think what you are missing is that it isn't the government's job to provide "full social services", so the fact that they aren't doing the whole job is a Good Thing. Charities are necessary not because the government is failing, but because the charities and government have different things to do.
We used to rely on charities to do the job, but too many people started wanting too many things and too many people thought "gee, think of the children" and stuff like that and started expecting the government to become their de-novo parents. If you'd made the kind of comment you did back in 1900, you'd get blank stares and people would cross the street when they saw you coming.
If only 1% of the attendees that go to these kinds of tradeshows are the "right" attendees and the rest are a bunch of folks fibbing their way in or otherwise finding the loophole, is that not demonstrating a desire in the marketplace for the other 99% who attend (consumers?) who WANT to attend this type of show?
That may be true.
In my opinion, maybe they are missing an opportunity to host purely consumer facing tradeshows as contrasted with "industry only" ones.
For there to be a "purely consumer facing tradeshow", you need two things. First, consumers who want to come. You appear to have that.
But more important, you need vendors who want to spend the time and money displaying wares TO THE CONSUMERS at such a show. That's what you don't have.
But let's say you find a bunch of vendors who would come to such a show. Since the intended target has changed, their presentation would change, and you'd lose the interest of the consumers in attending a "special" show like that.
People come to CES for the swag, which is fallout of the vendors sucking up to qualified buyers. If the audience changes from qualified buyers to general public, the vendors will change tactics, too. Isn't that just what happened to COMDEX?
The law is giving one company a competitive advantage over another for no good reason.
You are not, then, one of the people who regularly rants about how the Constitution is being trashed by this law or that law or the police putting a GPS on a car or whatever?
Otherwise, the Constitution would be a rather good reason, I think. The federal government has been granted, by the States, the sole authority to regulate interstate commerce. Applying a state tax to interstate commerce is a clear violation of that authority, and the authority of the US government to levy excises.
Are you just suggesting that there shouldn't be sales tax?
I'm suggesting that the High Mighty God of Fair isn't sufficient reason to start interfering with interstate commerce when everyone involved was aware of the rules when they started playing the game. You want to be a brick and mortar, fine, you accept the rules brick and mortars play under. You want to be online only? Fine, too. You get those rules.
If that's the case you should just say it because what you did say was melodramatic and silly.
Far be it for me to say that Kurt Vonnegut is melodramatic and silly. And for all those who posted that name, yes, I was aware of that story already, and IIRC at least one Twilight Zone adaptation thereof.
It's a great idea, but I'm afraid this business would immediately get shut down as a fraud. Somebody who is not the buyer effectively posing as the buyer would be frowned upon.
And yet, they exist today. Google "remailing services". Top of the sponsored links:USA2ME.
Nobody is "effectively posing" as anyone. You're using a ship-to address that shows up one place, and you are paying someone there to reship it. Who cares if it is "frowned upon" as long as it is legal?
Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Since congress has not levied an excise or impost upon interstate transactions, and the states do not have the power to do such, then we are guaranteed, via the US Constitution, of tax-free interstate commerce, with respect to any sales tax.
If I can buy something on line and not pay sales tax so get the good cheaper, how is that fair to a local store that must charge the sales tax?
That local store receives services from the local taxation district and Amazon does not. That local store chose to set up shop where they did, knowing that they had an additional cost to pass on to the customer. Mailorder isn't new. Sears and JCPenny were founded to deal with it, and their catalogs kept many rural residents warm and clean for decades.
What other costs accepted by the local stores should be arbitrarily added to the mail order companies just to make things "fair"? Should Amazon be charged "property taxes" based on an estimated amount of property? Well, where they are located they have X amount of property, and they do Y% of business in this state, so we'll charge them property tax on 100*Y*X. Yes? It's only fair.
Well this puts Amazon on a more even footing with Barnes and Noble, since they are stuck paying local taxes and are having trouble competing with Amazon.
Hmm, I sense the possibility of a science fiction story here. Some alternate future where "even footing" is not accomplished by removing impediments from those who are limited, but by adding impediments to those who are unfairly gifted.
And now you will be paying to have police and roads and schools while you shop online, yay!
I already pay for police and roads and schools while I shop online, because I shop online from the comfort of my own home, upon which I pay outrageous property taxes.
No, no i didn't. I asked you why you opposed it, you responded that it was because it was mandated by government, i countered that this is not valid because something is not necessarily bad just because it is mandated by government.
And that's support for it continuing. What is this game you keep trying to play?
How you can you know that when you still fail to specify those reasons.
I've told you before. Read the answer I already gave.
Are you suggesting this goes back to 'because it's an unfunded mandate by the government'? Because that is not a valid reason,
In your opinion it is not a valid reason. It certainly is a valid reason if you believe that unfunded mandates are wrong. You happen to think that it's fine for federal and state governments to tell local school districts that they must do certain things but then not provide the money to do them. I don't agree.
moreover how can you say that an online course is more expensive than traditional teaching methods
Now you prove you didn't read what I've written because I didn't say that. I made no cost comparisons at all. I don't know which of the two costs more. What I DO know is that being forced to ADD support for mandatory online courses also ADDS the costs of those courses to an existing teaching system.
Perhaps this is even cheaper.
Only if you get rid of the existing teaching staff, and I've been repeatedly told in this discussion that nobody is suggesting that. You're basing your whole argument on that happening.
Who's got the brain that came up with the idea of having months start at zero, but day of month start at one?!?!
The same guy who decided that C arrays start at 0 instead of 1.
One of the common, if not most common, use of the month number is to look up the month name in an array so the human used is told "June" instead of "5".
Which reminds me of my wonderful Cruz book reader, running android, which has no ability to look up the month name from the number outside the full calendar app. When I set the alarm clock, the "repeat" shows, for my weekday alarm, "8:30 on 2,3,4,5,6".
The $GPRMC sentence is required by NMEA-0183 to report UTC.
NMEA is not "the GPS protocol." It is a protocol for transmitting all kinds of data from all kinds of devices. Depth finders, LORAN, GPS, etc.
The GPS protocol defines what internal GPS data transmission, and that protocol uses GPS time but has information about the GPS to UTC offset.
What brand module did you find that did not do this? I'd like to be sure to avoid it...
I believe that the Trimble Acutime GPS receiver provides raw GPS time in its data output until the offset is known, at which time it switches to UTC. This is the GPS I have for my NTP server, and I recall there being an odd 12 or 13 second time error right after the GPS is powered on. Of course, I use a more accurate binary protocol to talk to it, not NMEA.
According to Missouri Statute 569.080, a person is guilty of 1st degree tampering ( a Class C Felony, FYI) if "He or she knowingly receives, possesses, sells, alters, defaces, destroys or unlawfully operates an automobile, airplane, motorcycle, motorboat or other motor-propelled vehicle without the consent of the owner thereof."
So the answer to my question is "it doesn't control or change the use of the vehicle in any way". Ok. Does it "alter" the vehicle? Well, does putting a traffic ticket under the windshield wiper "alter" the vehicle? Does putting an advertising flyer alter it? Both are examples of actions that "attach" something to a vehicle in an non-permanent manner, that leave the vehicle in the original state when removed, and are easily removed. Have you tried getting a meter maid arrested for violation of this statute?
A more relevant example would be, does the attachment of a tow-notice (large orange sticker saying "move this car or it will be towed") "alter" the car? It's a more permanent attachment. How about the attachment of a "boot"? There is no warrant required for that, only a certain number of unpaid parking tickets. Clearly, in both of these example, there are warrantless "alterations" that can be made by police to a vehicle without the owner's permission.
Notice that the law you cited (thank you for citing it, BTW) says nothing about tracking or the function of the "alteration", so the argument that the GPS "alteration" is a tracker and the advertising flying isn't isn't relevant to this alleged violation. The law deals only with the "alteration" itself.
On a different issue, I'd like a cite for the "prohibited from following" law so I can see exactly what it says.
Wow, kudos sir on some of the most elegant Weasel Words I've seen to use the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law.
Do you know the spirit of the fourth amendment? Was the spirit "of the law" to prevent police from observing things that are in plain sight, or was it to prevent them from intruding into private spaces and confiscating private property without legal justification? I.e., "search" and "seizure"?
In this case, there was neither an intrusion into private spaces nor a confiscation of property. There was no search. There was no seizure.
Now, if you want to argue that this violates a "right to privacy", then you need to find in the Constitution where it actually has this right listed. Yes, you might claim that the amendment that says that other rights exist but doesn't list "privacy" as one of them actually refers to that, but you could claim anything you want as a right under that provision. I don't think the spirit of the founders was that anything anyone wants to take as a right would become a right just because they say so.
... then the cops don't need a warrant to secretly "place" a GPS pill in your hamburger and have you swallow it.
The obvious difference that you are skipping over to try to make your point, is that the interior of your body is a private space and not "in plain sight". Nor is the introduction of an adulterant to your food something that would have no effect upon you. It may, in fact, cause you great physical harm.
Your claim that by eating it you have chosen to participate is just lunacy.
All this being said, if you want to treat teacher's as professionals, then it seems reasonable to entrust them with the decision of what tools to use.
Better yet, leave the decisions of how to teach one's kids at the parent's level -- where the money comes from -- instead of mandating the same thing for every school using other people's money. There are local school boards, and local school districts with local tax levies, for a reason. Not every school should do things the same way because not every school has to do the same job.
Then why did you list a justification for your opposition as simply that it is an unfunded mandate?
Because I think the fact that "it happens" is irrelevant. I think it is a bad thing. You argued that "it happens" as support for it continuing, and I pointed out that "it happens" isn't a justification.
Obviously that isn't justification for opposition at all.
Obviously to you, because you think that "it happens" is justification for it continuing.
Are you hard of reading? The statement stands for itself, I didn't write 'allowing' and i didn't miss the word 'mandate'.
Obviously you did miss the word "mandate", because you replied to my coment about mandating something by asking what was wrong with it happening. There is a difference between allowing them to do it and mandating it, and no, "having" is not the same as "mandated". A counsellor can have a student take an online class because it is appropriate (and the student wants to), and that's not the same as a state government mandating that he take the class no matter what.
I have no problem with the former, but the latter is not acceptable, for the reasons you obviously don't agree with.
What's wrong with mandating high school students take classes in a form that is becoming ever more common in post-high school life?
The fact that you are asking me the same question that I already answered means you obviously didn't read the answer I already provided.
No-one is suggesting you just throw them at the internet and let them figure it out for themselves,
What other interpretation would you apply to the phrase "just the internet" when referring to high school students? If there are teachers involved, then it isn't "just the internet".
I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or serious. Just in case... it wasn't a lack of computer literacy that forced a local store to close one day when the cash register broke, it was a lack of ability of the cashiers to figure out how to make change. Pure numerical literacy issue.
I get "that look" regularly, when I hand a young cashier $10.34 for a $4.34 sale -- she saw the $10 bill and poked that number into the register which is now telling her to give me $5.66, and I'm telling her to give me $6. Completely baffled.
Sometimes I think about trying the old Abbott and Costello routine where I say I don't have a five so I'll pay with a ten, and then when I get a five back in change I say "ok, now I have a five, here's a five, give me back my ten."
Slashdot Mirror
Challenging the data collection is challenging the data.
Aye. This. Data collected improperly is not valid data. End of story.
The data is only as trustworthy as the researcher who collected it, and the sort of people who go into climate science research...
You don't need to go as far as besmirching the reputations of those who take the data. That's what the zealots on the AGW bandwagon like to do, and that's wrong. It is insulting when they do it, it's insulting when it happens to them. The only difference is they don't recognize how insulting it is when they do it, but scream like stuck pigs when it is turned back onto them.
It can be as simple as a mistake in a model that is the basis for some remote sensing measurement, or an error in the process that wasn't recognized. It can be an invalid assumption that was made completely innocently. It can be a simple miscommunication between the people who collect the data and the scientist who uses it. (Once upon a time, I had a scientist come to me looking at the data we'd collected, trying to pull information out at 1kHz, and I'd put a 100Hz low pass filter on the sensor. Oh, crap, you wanted that stuff I thought was noise? Oops. Try again.)
Several years ago, there was a paper from a team of remote sensing scientists who showed that the algorithms for converting the satellite measurements into surface temperature were wrong. They were getting a deterministic error in the answers. (This also shows the difference between DATA and the interpretation of that data. The DATA was right, the interpretation was wrong. The data can also be wrong, but that's a different kind of error.)
The correlation that the temperatures started going up when such and such a level of CO2 was reached, or at the beginning of the heavy industrial era, is DATA. It is the interpretation of this data that turns it into proof that one caused the other that is questionable.
When you can't come up with actual science to refute the findings all you are left with is tearing down the other side.
Yes, like "ignore that man's research, it was funded by an oil company and his opinion was bought".
The only ones talking about religion and heretics are those opposed to the findings of climate science.
Well, the ones who have recognized the zealous claims that "humans are the cause" based on correlation and not causation as "religion" are the only ones who would call that position "religious". The ones who claim that AGW is irrefutable fact and there can be no more debate are unlikley to recognize their own position as based on faith and lack of scientific rigor. "We're scientists, god damn it, and we know! How dare you question our data or interpretations thereof."
You're right. You meant it as an insult, but you are quite correct nonetheless, and show the double-edged sword nature of pointing fingers like that.
The most angering thing about this issue is that those who dare question the evidence for AGW are branded as "climage change deniers", even though they are only questioning the evidence for a possible cause and not climate change as a whole. Then the name calling starts -- and nothing advances. The AGW zealots (and those who have picked up the issue as a way of furthering their own political or economic agendae) start frothing at the mouth and jumping up and down and pointing at all the "deniers" who are obvious morons because they can't see what is happening right in front of their own eyes. Or they start pointing the finger at research that dissagrees with theirs but cannot be right because of who paid for it, ignoring that they are getting money to study a problem -- and if there is no problem the money would go elsewhere. It truly is the frothers who are unable to see what the other side is saying and need to stop painting the rest of the world into "us" and "them" black and white.
Summary: if someone says to you "AGW is a fact", and then you ask for the proof, if the best they can give you is correlations and not experimental proof, and if all they give you is the stink eye and start calling you names and insulting you for not accepting their word on the matter, THEY are the problem, and THEY need to do something else for a living. Yes, that means a scientist may need to explain the problem more than once. That's part of the process. You don't think that Einstein gave one lecture on relativity and then told everyone after that "I've explained it already, you're a moron for not believing me because I'm Einstein and you aren't..." do you?
Un no if you are on Linux you are using Linux. Linux doesn't have a "server" version.
Ummm, well, almost. If I recall correctly, and this was a year ago now, I ran into Ubuntu server vs. workstation distribution issues on a system I was installing that needed qualities of both. Maybe it was Debian. I don't remember which one, I just remember finding out that a lot of what I needed wasn't in the disto I was using.
I'd also consider some of the light distros that are intended for servers and not workstations.
I know, that's a distribtion and not "Linux" as a whole, but I think it's close enough to count.
I wonder if there would be benefit to making antibiotics that are combined with an opiate painkiller. The drugs would only be available to be taken at a hospital or clinic. The patient would need the painkiller, but returning for their antibiotic would reward them with the opiate. The final few days of antibiotic would have progressively smaller opiate doses to wind them down.
Hmmm. So you'd require anyone taking antibiotics to become in-patients at the local hospital? They wouldn't be able to legally drive there, perhaps more than once a day, because they'd be under the influence.
Why would they require a painkiller? I've had infections that didn't result in much, if any, pain.
You want to "wind them down" at the end. Just how hooked would you expect someone to get with just three days of treatement? You're trying to force people to take the entire course of treatment, but the same people who would stop after three days when getting pills to take at home will stop after two days if they have to take time off work every day to drive to a hospital to get a pill.
"full social services" being in quotes is interesting, seeing how it's a phrase I didn't use.
Look up "scare quotes".
The point I was making is that even where US government does provide social services, they are usually not sufficient to actually meet the need.
And my point is, so what? They aren't supposed to be doing it, so the fact that they aren't doing it is irrelevant.
In this particular case, we're talking about military morale. It's insane that we rely on a private charity to take care of this (and USO isn't the only one.. cf Operation Bedding, etc).
No, it isn't insane that we rely on a charity to do charity work. That's what charities are for. I would rather have the USO doing the job it does than having the military actually pay the going rates for entertainers and their entourages to go visit the troops. It would be insane to have the military renting the space and paying staff to be at every airport when they already have space and staff at the local bases.
Having the USO do it means everyone wins. The troops get the benefits. The people who volunteer and donate get the benefits. The entertainers get lots of good press and rep points.
Do YOU want to increase the military budget to provide the USO services? Do you think such increases would survive any stringent budget cuts?
How about the charity operations that do things like provide Christmas packages and messages from home to troops that are deployed? Should those packages be coming from someone in the military instead? "Dear soldier, thanks for serving, here's a cookie. Signed, Col. Joe Smith, Commander, Military Troop Morale Command Eastern Division. MTMCEDIV -- we care because we're paid to care!"
The attitudes of 1900 are not relevant in any way.
They demonstrate the modern abberation that is being accepted as "the way things should be", when they weren't always that way and nobody thought they should be.
Don't you have to be convicted of actually committing an illegal act though? Otherwise, the police just stole your car.
Google "civil asset forfeiture". The car is guilty of the act, it is being punished by being confiscated. It's a civil case, so the level of proof is "preponderance of the evidence" only, and the proof lies with the car owner to get it back.
Oh, I think I know what you're missing... in the US the government rarely fully does the job (never, when it comes to social services) and therefore we rely on private charities to pick up the slack.
I think what you are missing is that it isn't the government's job to provide "full social services", so the fact that they aren't doing the whole job is a Good Thing. Charities are necessary not because the government is failing, but because the charities and government have different things to do.
We used to rely on charities to do the job, but too many people started wanting too many things and too many people thought "gee, think of the children" and stuff like that and started expecting the government to become their de-novo parents. If you'd made the kind of comment you did back in 1900, you'd get blank stares and people would cross the street when they saw you coming.
If only 1% of the attendees that go to these kinds of tradeshows are the "right" attendees and the rest are a bunch of folks fibbing their way in or otherwise finding the loophole, is that not demonstrating a desire in the marketplace for the other 99% who attend (consumers?) who WANT to attend this type of show?
That may be true.
In my opinion, maybe they are missing an opportunity to host purely consumer facing tradeshows as contrasted with "industry only" ones.
For there to be a "purely consumer facing tradeshow", you need two things. First, consumers who want to come. You appear to have that.
But more important, you need vendors who want to spend the time and money displaying wares TO THE CONSUMERS at such a show. That's what you don't have.
But let's say you find a bunch of vendors who would come to such a show. Since the intended target has changed, their presentation would change, and you'd lose the interest of the consumers in attending a "special" show like that.
People come to CES for the swag, which is fallout of the vendors sucking up to qualified buyers. If the audience changes from qualified buyers to general public, the vendors will change tactics, too. Isn't that just what happened to COMDEX?
The law is giving one company a competitive advantage over another for no good reason.
You are not, then, one of the people who regularly rants about how the Constitution is being trashed by this law or that law or the police putting a GPS on a car or whatever?
Otherwise, the Constitution would be a rather good reason, I think. The federal government has been granted, by the States, the sole authority to regulate interstate commerce. Applying a state tax to interstate commerce is a clear violation of that authority, and the authority of the US government to levy excises.
Are you just suggesting that there shouldn't be sales tax?
I'm suggesting that the High Mighty God of Fair isn't sufficient reason to start interfering with interstate commerce when everyone involved was aware of the rules when they started playing the game. You want to be a brick and mortar, fine, you accept the rules brick and mortars play under. You want to be online only? Fine, too. You get those rules.
If that's the case you should just say it because what you did say was melodramatic and silly.
Far be it for me to say that Kurt Vonnegut is melodramatic and silly. And for all those who posted that name, yes, I was aware of that story already, and IIRC at least one Twilight Zone adaptation thereof.
It's a great idea, but I'm afraid this business would immediately get shut down as a fraud. Somebody who is not the buyer effectively posing as the buyer would be frowned upon.
And yet, they exist today. Google "remailing services". Top of the sponsored links:USA2ME.
Nobody is "effectively posing" as anyone. You're using a ship-to address that shows up one place, and you are paying someone there to reship it. Who cares if it is "frowned upon" as long as it is legal?
Since congress has not levied an excise or impost upon interstate transactions, and the states do not have the power to do such, then we are guaranteed, via the US Constitution, of tax-free interstate commerce, with respect to any sales tax.
If I can buy something on line and not pay sales tax so get the good cheaper, how is that fair to a local store that must charge the sales tax?
That local store receives services from the local taxation district and Amazon does not. That local store chose to set up shop where they did, knowing that they had an additional cost to pass on to the customer. Mailorder isn't new. Sears and JCPenny were founded to deal with it, and their catalogs kept many rural residents warm and clean for decades.
What other costs accepted by the local stores should be arbitrarily added to the mail order companies just to make things "fair"? Should Amazon be charged "property taxes" based on an estimated amount of property? Well, where they are located they have X amount of property, and they do Y% of business in this state, so we'll charge them property tax on 100*Y*X. Yes? It's only fair.
Well this puts Amazon on a more even footing with Barnes and Noble, since they are stuck paying local taxes and are having trouble competing with Amazon.
Hmm, I sense the possibility of a science fiction story here. Some alternate future where "even footing" is not accomplished by removing impediments from those who are limited, but by adding impediments to those who are unfairly gifted.
All Hail the God of "Even Footing".
And now you will be paying to have police and roads and schools while you shop online, yay!
I already pay for police and roads and schools while I shop online, because I shop online from the comfort of my own home, upon which I pay outrageous property taxes.
No, no i didn't. I asked you why you opposed it, you responded that it was because it was mandated by government, i countered that this is not valid because something is not necessarily bad just because it is mandated by government.
And that's support for it continuing. What is this game you keep trying to play?
How you can you know that when you still fail to specify those reasons.
I've told you before. Read the answer I already gave.
Are you suggesting this goes back to 'because it's an unfunded mandate by the government'? Because that is not a valid reason,
In your opinion it is not a valid reason. It certainly is a valid reason if you believe that unfunded mandates are wrong. You happen to think that it's fine for federal and state governments to tell local school districts that they must do certain things but then not provide the money to do them. I don't agree.
moreover how can you say that an online course is more expensive than traditional teaching methods
Now you prove you didn't read what I've written because I didn't say that. I made no cost comparisons at all. I don't know which of the two costs more. What I DO know is that being forced to ADD support for mandatory online courses also ADDS the costs of those courses to an existing teaching system.
Perhaps this is even cheaper.
Only if you get rid of the existing teaching staff, and I've been repeatedly told in this discussion that nobody is suggesting that. You're basing your whole argument on that happening.
They sound like tick...tick...tick...(silence 23:59:59)...(silence 23:59:60)...BEEP (00:00:00)...tick...tick...tick...
I'll leap right to the end of the cascade of Hellen Keller jokes::
If a leap second fell on Hellen Keller, would she make a sound?
Who's got the brain that came up with the idea of having months start at zero, but day of month start at one?!?!
The same guy who decided that C arrays start at 0 instead of 1.
One of the common, if not most common, use of the month number is to look up the month name in an array so the human used is told "June" instead of "5".
Which reminds me of my wonderful Cruz book reader, running android, which has no ability to look up the month name from the number outside the full calendar app. When I set the alarm clock, the "repeat" shows, for my weekday alarm, "8:30 on 2,3,4,5,6".
The $GPRMC sentence is required by NMEA-0183 to report UTC.
NMEA is not "the GPS protocol." It is a protocol for transmitting all kinds of data from all kinds of devices. Depth finders, LORAN, GPS, etc.
The GPS protocol defines what internal GPS data transmission, and that protocol uses GPS time but has information about the GPS to UTC offset.
What brand module did you find that did not do this? I'd like to be sure to avoid it...
I believe that the Trimble Acutime GPS receiver provides raw GPS time in its data output until the offset is known, at which time it switches to UTC. This is the GPS I have for my NTP server, and I recall there being an odd 12 or 13 second time error right after the GPS is powered on. Of course, I use a more accurate binary protocol to talk to it, not NMEA.
According to Missouri Statute 569.080, a person is guilty of 1st degree tampering ( a Class C Felony, FYI) if "He or she knowingly receives, possesses, sells, alters, defaces, destroys or unlawfully operates an automobile, airplane, motorcycle, motorboat or other motor-propelled vehicle without the consent of the owner thereof."
So the answer to my question is "it doesn't control or change the use of the vehicle in any way". Ok. Does it "alter" the vehicle? Well, does putting a traffic ticket under the windshield wiper "alter" the vehicle? Does putting an advertising flyer alter it? Both are examples of actions that "attach" something to a vehicle in an non-permanent manner, that leave the vehicle in the original state when removed, and are easily removed. Have you tried getting a meter maid arrested for violation of this statute?
A more relevant example would be, does the attachment of a tow-notice (large orange sticker saying "move this car or it will be towed") "alter" the car? It's a more permanent attachment. How about the attachment of a "boot"? There is no warrant required for that, only a certain number of unpaid parking tickets. Clearly, in both of these example, there are warrantless "alterations" that can be made by police to a vehicle without the owner's permission.
Notice that the law you cited (thank you for citing it, BTW) says nothing about tracking or the function of the "alteration", so the argument that the GPS "alteration" is a tracker and the advertising flying isn't isn't relevant to this alleged violation. The law deals only with the "alteration" itself.
On a different issue, I'd like a cite for the "prohibited from following" law so I can see exactly what it says.
Wow, kudos sir on some of the most elegant Weasel Words I've seen to use the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law.
Do you know the spirit of the fourth amendment? Was the spirit "of the law" to prevent police from observing things that are in plain sight, or was it to prevent them from intruding into private spaces and confiscating private property without legal justification? I.e., "search" and "seizure"?
In this case, there was neither an intrusion into private spaces nor a confiscation of property. There was no search. There was no seizure.
Now, if you want to argue that this violates a "right to privacy", then you need to find in the Constitution where it actually has this right listed. Yes, you might claim that the amendment that says that other rights exist but doesn't list "privacy" as one of them actually refers to that, but you could claim anything you want as a right under that provision. I don't think the spirit of the founders was that anything anyone wants to take as a right would become a right just because they say so.
... then the cops don't need a warrant to secretly "place" a GPS pill in your hamburger and have you swallow it.
The obvious difference that you are skipping over to try to make your point, is that the interior of your body is a private space and not "in plain sight". Nor is the introduction of an adulterant to your food something that would have no effect upon you. It may, in fact, cause you great physical harm.
Your claim that by eating it you have chosen to participate is just lunacy.
I was being quite sarcastic.
Okay.
All this being said, if you want to treat teacher's as professionals, then it seems reasonable to entrust them with the decision of what tools to use.
Better yet, leave the decisions of how to teach one's kids at the parent's level -- where the money comes from -- instead of mandating the same thing for every school using other people's money. There are local school boards, and local school districts with local tax levies, for a reason. Not every school should do things the same way because not every school has to do the same job.
Then why did you list a justification for your opposition as simply that it is an unfunded mandate?
Because I think the fact that "it happens" is irrelevant. I think it is a bad thing. You argued that "it happens" as support for it continuing, and I pointed out that "it happens" isn't a justification.
Obviously that isn't justification for opposition at all.
Obviously to you, because you think that "it happens" is justification for it continuing.
Are you hard of reading? The statement stands for itself, I didn't write 'allowing' and i didn't miss the word 'mandate'.
Obviously you did miss the word "mandate", because you replied to my coment about mandating something by asking what was wrong with it happening. There is a difference between allowing them to do it and mandating it, and no, "having" is not the same as "mandated". A counsellor can have a student take an online class because it is appropriate (and the student wants to), and that's not the same as a state government mandating that he take the class no matter what. I have no problem with the former, but the latter is not acceptable, for the reasons you obviously don't agree with.
What's wrong with mandating high school students take classes in a form that is becoming ever more common in post-high school life?
The fact that you are asking me the same question that I already answered means you obviously didn't read the answer I already provided.
Can you please cite which groups of people can't learn from it?
No-one is suggesting you just throw them at the internet and let them figure it out for themselves,
What other interpretation would you apply to the phrase "just the internet" when referring to high school students? If there are teachers involved, then it isn't "just the internet".
I get "that look" regularly, when I hand a young cashier $10.34 for a $4.34 sale -- she saw the $10 bill and poked that number into the register which is now telling her to give me $5.66, and I'm telling her to give me $6. Completely baffled.
Sometimes I think about trying the old Abbott and Costello routine where I say I don't have a five so I'll pay with a ten, and then when I get a five back in change I say "ok, now I have a five, here's a five, give me back my ten."