Or maybe uphill. The proper balance of power between the Federal government and the states, or how much I should think of myself as a US citizen vs. a resident of Minnesota, is a matter of opinion.
If you want to know what the Electoral College was set up for, read Federalist Paper 68.
The idea was that a selection of educated and informed men would be better able to select a President than the general population. By selecting these men just for that purpose, the US could avoid having a foreign power tamper in Presidential elections. and they could keep the unqualified and the demogogues out of office. In other words, the EC as envisioned by the writers of the Constitution was supposed to keep Trump out of office. Publius (the nom de plume of the people who wrote the papers) was awfully self-congratulatory about this.
So you have the relatively sparsely populated center of the country. Should they really dictate what the entire country does? The Founders really didn't have this situation to consider, as there were basically Northern and Southern states along the Atlantic coast for fundamental political differences.
They can't. (At least not in the US.) However, a signed and ratified treaty is the law of the land, according to the Constitution, and that's something the courts can rule on.
From what I remember from other reading, it's really hard to sue the government over a matter of politics. It's far easier to sue over a problem with execution of policy. If you want to change policy, you vote and write your Congressional representatives and that sort of thing.
So, if the plaintiffs want to argue that we should be spending more on CO2 abatement, they don't have much of a case, since that's a political question. If there is a definite policy that the government is failing to execute properly, or pertinent laws that they are ignoring, they have a chance.
Insurance companies aren't happy paying for anything. They are very good at estimating costs and setting their rates to be competitive but not unprofitable. You will be able to get quotes from your agent for different vehicles, and if they consider an autonomous vehicle more or less likely to cost them money you'll get an appropriate rate.
If we charged manufacturers $7 million every time someone died in a car they made, the manufacturers would get out of the business so fast that they'd cause sonic booms. Most crashes are a result of somebody doing something seriously wrong, and until we get rid of human controls altogether no manufacturer would be able to stop drivers from being stupid.
The Autopilot won't handle all the simple and elementary situations. If my adaptive cruise control screws up and tries to drive up the tailpipe of the car in front, I hit the brakes. If there's a sudden obstacle, I hit the brakes even if the collision avoidance system has done so faster than I could. So far, it has worked splendidly (well, the adaptive cruise control, haven't really tested the collision avoidance system), but I was not told to rely on it, and the user manual is very emphatic that I shouldn't.
Unfortunately every products costs the amount it costed t produce it plus the margin the producer wants to make.
I interpreted that to mean that the margin was something more or less fixed, and that things are priced on the basis of cost plus margin. By that interpretation, it's wrong.. Nor are prices composed of cost to produce plus profit, since there's a lot of other stuff in between.
A regulated monopoly will normally run on a cost-plus-margin basis, since that's the compensation for having the monopoly. Most stuff I buy isn't from regulated monopolies.
Sure. However, I seem to remember a certain Sergeant Fury and the Howling Commandos - or something like that - nominally from WWII. That would not have happened at all had Fury been colored (to use the military terminology of the day).
Ever raised a kid? If so, did you do web searches and research projects to find out what to do in all situations? Or did you try making decisions without enough information?
Also, it isn't hard to contest charges on a credit card bill.
Obviously, I wouldn't give the kid a credit card. I wouldn't give him a phone that could be used for credit card purchases deliberately, either.
The setting for requiring a password for any transaction is there, but pretty well hidden. The game developers do their best to encourage such purchases. There's no warning. The whole scam depends on parents and children not realizing how doing something in-app spends real money. It's a confidence scheme that works on honest people.
I was hesitant about accepting an on-line dictionary for legal advice, but if you've checked other sources I'll accept that.
Around here, presenting an opportunity to commit a crime is not considered entrapment. It's okay for an undercover police officer to hang around a suspected drug dealer in the hope of being offered a deal, because someone who is not a drug dealer will not offer the deal. It's entrapment if the officer asks to buy drugs, because that's an inducement to commit a crime.
That's not how the courts see it around here. The police have parked cars here and there intended to be attractive to car thieves, on the principle that only a car thief would care about such things. The idea is that only a criminal would take advantage of a good opportunity to commit a crime. They can't push anyone towards taking advantage of one of these opportunities, or that would be entrapment.
I'd bet that there are places with certain freedoms, like the freedom to not have a SWAT team break into my house at night and shoot my dogs and terrify my family and break my stuff because somebody else wanted to play a prank. How about the freedom to fly without worrying if someone with my name (at least it's not a common one) is on a secret government list somewhere? How about the freedom to not be shot dead if some police officer panics? The US isn't as free as some people think.
You know all those people who said they'd move to Canada if Obama won? I'm still waiting, guys, and for some of you I could extend a little financial help. I figure they have priority over people who said they'd move if Trump won.
Thing is, if I wanted to blow something up, I'd be really worried about instructions I found on the web. I'm not an explosives expert myself (or I wouldn't need to websurf to find this), and I wouldn't know if the instructions were designed to create a useful explosive, something inert, or to make me blow myself up. If I had an honest-to-FSM US military field manual, I'd know that the instructions were designed to help me blow up something I wanted to blow up. There would be instructions for stuff I couldn't use because of availability (I do not in fact keep C4 in my basements or blasting caps in my junk drawer) and for stuff I didn't really want to do, but the rest would be golden.
I'd expect a VPN to use apparently unbreakable encryption. It's not that hard. If I found that a VPN services was using something lame like DES, I'd find another.
What a traffic analysis would find is that GameboyRMH sent some sort of message to a computer outside the system, and then downloaded a file from it at some later time, and that's in the best case scenario where there's no other traffic.That's not going to tell anyone anything.
In your example, you haven't incited an illegal act, and if the police did it it wouldn't be entrapment.
What you would have done is more parallel to a police sting operation, in which they don't incite crime but make it attractive for a criminal to commit a crime they would already have done somewhere they can be arrested.
If I were a police officer and walked up to someone and offered them money for drugs, that's entrapment. If I say I want drugs and the guy offers to sell them, that's a sting, because it's the sort of offer that wouldn't incite a non-drug-dealer to make an offer.
I doubt dictionary.com is a good source for international legal advice. If I was worried about whether I (as a private person) was committing entrapment I'd rather consult a lawyer familiar with my state's laws.
I don't think it would be wise for me to offer to pay someone to perform an illegal act, anyway. Law enforcement can often do that, provided they are conducting a bona fide investigation.
When we got my son an iPad for a high school graduation present, he didn't have a credit card and we didn't provide one. We gave him an iTunes gift card with the iPad so he could buy some stuff with his account. I don't remember it being any big deal.
Speaking as a parent, sometimes I had the kid around and had to pay attention to something else. If I knew that was going to happen, I could bring a book or toy along with me. If I didn't, letting him play with my phone was better than trying to divide my attention and making nobody happy. You may not have realized this, but parenthood doesn't come with assistance in dealing with all other areas of my life so I can pay attention to the kid 24/7/365.
MtG (which I spent plenty of money on) was always straightforward: I could spend money on those booster packs, or I could refrain. In-app purchases can be disguised to the child doesn't know what he or she is doing.
Yeah, and setting that option on an iPhone required going two or three menus deep, and when I checked the menus didn't have very helpful names. I didn't see anything about it in any obvious place. I only looked for it after one of these cases came up. I'm actually pretty intelligent, and it took some poking around. I shouldn't have to do unusual things to defend against an attack.
So, I should assume that, if I can find a crack through your security, you're OK with me draining your bank account?
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe uphill. The proper balance of power between the Federal government and the states, or how much I should think of myself as a US citizen vs. a resident of Minnesota, is a matter of opinion.
If you want to know what the Electoral College was set up for, read Federalist Paper 68.
The idea was that a selection of educated and informed men would be better able to select a President than the general population. By selecting these men just for that purpose, the US could avoid having a foreign power tamper in Presidential elections. and they could keep the unqualified and the demogogues out of office. In other words, the EC as envisioned by the writers of the Constitution was supposed to keep Trump out of office. Publius (the nom de plume of the people who wrote the papers) was awfully self-congratulatory about this.
So you have the relatively sparsely populated center of the country. Should they really dictate what the entire country does? The Founders really didn't have this situation to consider, as there were basically Northern and Southern states along the Atlantic coast for fundamental political differences.
They can't. (At least not in the US.) However, a signed and ratified treaty is the law of the land, according to the Constitution, and that's something the courts can rule on.
From what I remember from other reading, it's really hard to sue the government over a matter of politics. It's far easier to sue over a problem with execution of policy. If you want to change policy, you vote and write your Congressional representatives and that sort of thing.
So, if the plaintiffs want to argue that we should be spending more on CO2 abatement, they don't have much of a case, since that's a political question. If there is a definite policy that the government is failing to execute properly, or pertinent laws that they are ignoring, they have a chance.
Insurance companies aren't happy paying for anything. They are very good at estimating costs and setting their rates to be competitive but not unprofitable. You will be able to get quotes from your agent for different vehicles, and if they consider an autonomous vehicle more or less likely to cost them money you'll get an appropriate rate.
If we charged manufacturers $7 million every time someone died in a car they made, the manufacturers would get out of the business so fast that they'd cause sonic booms. Most crashes are a result of somebody doing something seriously wrong, and until we get rid of human controls altogether no manufacturer would be able to stop drivers from being stupid.
The Autopilot won't handle all the simple and elementary situations. If my adaptive cruise control screws up and tries to drive up the tailpipe of the car in front, I hit the brakes. If there's a sudden obstacle, I hit the brakes even if the collision avoidance system has done so faster than I could. So far, it has worked splendidly (well, the adaptive cruise control, haven't really tested the collision avoidance system), but I was not told to rely on it, and the user manual is very emphatic that I shouldn't.
I like your suggestion. It would help third parties a lot. I know of no state that does that.
Perhaps I should have used the exact quote:
I interpreted that to mean that the margin was something more or less fixed, and that things are priced on the basis of cost plus margin. By that interpretation, it's wrong.. Nor are prices composed of cost to produce plus profit, since there's a lot of other stuff in between.
A regulated monopoly will normally run on a cost-plus-margin basis, since that's the compensation for having the monopoly. Most stuff I buy isn't from regulated monopolies.
Sure. However, I seem to remember a certain Sergeant Fury and the Howling Commandos - or something like that - nominally from WWII. That would not have happened at all had Fury been colored (to use the military terminology of the day).
Ever raised a kid? If so, did you do web searches and research projects to find out what to do in all situations? Or did you try making decisions without enough information?
Also, it isn't hard to contest charges on a credit card bill.
Obviously, I wouldn't give the kid a credit card. I wouldn't give him a phone that could be used for credit card purchases deliberately, either.
The setting for requiring a password for any transaction is there, but pretty well hidden. The game developers do their best to encourage such purchases. There's no warning. The whole scam depends on parents and children not realizing how doing something in-app spends real money. It's a confidence scheme that works on honest people.
I was hesitant about accepting an on-line dictionary for legal advice, but if you've checked other sources I'll accept that.
Around here, presenting an opportunity to commit a crime is not considered entrapment. It's okay for an undercover police officer to hang around a suspected drug dealer in the hope of being offered a deal, because someone who is not a drug dealer will not offer the deal. It's entrapment if the officer asks to buy drugs, because that's an inducement to commit a crime.
That's not how the courts see it around here. The police have parked cars here and there intended to be attractive to car thieves, on the principle that only a car thief would care about such things. The idea is that only a criminal would take advantage of a good opportunity to commit a crime. They can't push anyone towards taking advantage of one of these opportunities, or that would be entrapment.
I'm not so keen about trusting books in general for doing dangerous things. I would trust a military Field Manual.
I'd bet that there are places with certain freedoms, like the freedom to not have a SWAT team break into my house at night and shoot my dogs and terrify my family and break my stuff because somebody else wanted to play a prank. How about the freedom to fly without worrying if someone with my name (at least it's not a common one) is on a secret government list somewhere? How about the freedom to not be shot dead if some police officer panics? The US isn't as free as some people think.
You know all those people who said they'd move to Canada if Obama won? I'm still waiting, guys, and for some of you I could extend a little financial help. I figure they have priority over people who said they'd move if Trump won.
Thing is, if I wanted to blow something up, I'd be really worried about instructions I found on the web. I'm not an explosives expert myself (or I wouldn't need to websurf to find this), and I wouldn't know if the instructions were designed to create a useful explosive, something inert, or to make me blow myself up. If I had an honest-to-FSM US military field manual, I'd know that the instructions were designed to help me blow up something I wanted to blow up. There would be instructions for stuff I couldn't use because of availability (I do not in fact keep C4 in my basements or blasting caps in my junk drawer) and for stuff I didn't really want to do, but the rest would be golden.
I'd expect a VPN to use apparently unbreakable encryption. It's not that hard. If I found that a VPN services was using something lame like DES, I'd find another.
What a traffic analysis would find is that GameboyRMH sent some sort of message to a computer outside the system, and then downloaded a file from it at some later time, and that's in the best case scenario where there's no other traffic.That's not going to tell anyone anything.
In your example, you haven't incited an illegal act, and if the police did it it wouldn't be entrapment.
What you would have done is more parallel to a police sting operation, in which they don't incite crime but make it attractive for a criminal to commit a crime they would already have done somewhere they can be arrested.
If I were a police officer and walked up to someone and offered them money for drugs, that's entrapment. If I say I want drugs and the guy offers to sell them, that's a sting, because it's the sort of offer that wouldn't incite a non-drug-dealer to make an offer.
I doubt dictionary.com is a good source for international legal advice. If I was worried about whether I (as a private person) was committing entrapment I'd rather consult a lawyer familiar with my state's laws.
I don't think it would be wise for me to offer to pay someone to perform an illegal act, anyway. Law enforcement can often do that, provided they are conducting a bona fide investigation.
Really? I never had that problem.
You must have been holding it wrong.
When we got my son an iPad for a high school graduation present, he didn't have a credit card and we didn't provide one. We gave him an iTunes gift card with the iPad so he could buy some stuff with his account. I don't remember it being any big deal.
Speaking as a parent, sometimes I had the kid around and had to pay attention to something else. If I knew that was going to happen, I could bring a book or toy along with me. If I didn't, letting him play with my phone was better than trying to divide my attention and making nobody happy. You may not have realized this, but parenthood doesn't come with assistance in dealing with all other areas of my life so I can pay attention to the kid 24/7/365.
MtG (which I spent plenty of money on) was always straightforward: I could spend money on those booster packs, or I could refrain. In-app purchases can be disguised to the child doesn't know what he or she is doing.
Yeah, and setting that option on an iPhone required going two or three menus deep, and when I checked the menus didn't have very helpful names. I didn't see anything about it in any obvious place. I only looked for it after one of these cases came up. I'm actually pretty intelligent, and it took some poking around. I shouldn't have to do unusual things to defend against an attack.
So, I should assume that, if I can find a crack through your security, you're OK with me draining your bank account?