rather has to wait until numerous people have suffered for the lack of it. You're also calling for metrics that don't really exist.
Well yes and the SCOTUS essentially ruled yesterday that Texas can't impose safety regulations on abortion providers because abortion is 'right' (disagree personally) and the procedure appears to be to safe (which is funny because its about the only medical procedure I am aware that is almost universally fatal). So the states interest in ensuring safety does not offer a reason for regulation and imposes an undue burden.
Well okay, by that logic you can't regulate anything (remember the 9th and 10th Amendments now we have rights to do essentially anything until its taken away) until there is A proof that it poses some actual harm in practice to an explicitly stated interest of the government, and your proposed regulation must be demonstrably useful in accomplishing that interest.
So before SF can do this it must: 1) Explain what its trying to accomplish 2) Explain how its objectives are not presently being met 3) Explain how the proposed regulation will meet such objects and provide evidence of their efficacy
So yes lets apply this standard everywhere, best ruling ever as far as limiting the role government is potentially concerned, when used broadly.
I think the SCOTUS BS undue burden ruling on abortion yesterday should be taken and run with. I think any regulation where the state does not have solid evidence is effective at addressing an explicitly stated objective which restricts someones rights in anyway ( In this case AirBnb's right to advertise rent able units ) should be automatically considered unconstitutional.
Hubris indeed; a 29 year old decided that he knew better than the hundreds of elected officials that we the people appointed to make these sorts of decisions on our behalf. Nobody elected him or entrusted him with this sort of power, he just took it for himself.
Wait lets get our facts strait. Its not hundreds of elected officials, its 10s if that. Only a small number of people on the intelligence committees and POTUS would have known anything about the stuff Snowden revealed. He arguably did and does know better than the rest of the hundreds of elected peoples in the House and Senate because he had access to inside information and ample evidence that they were being lied to in testimony given by intelligence officials. We don't know what the intelligence committee people might have known or how accurate the information they had was; while it was CIA not NSA you will recall the issue of Senate computers being hacked during the black-site/torture investigations.
In fact, she'd be impeached even with the pardon....
That actually sounds like a sticky legal question. The Senate has to convict you of high crimes, but if you were pardoned preemptively like Nixon for all crimes related to...
Than you can't really be convicted, a pardon is not like having you sentence commuted it removes the conviction, not just the punitive measure. So I don't know if the senate could legally remove her from office at all, unless she committed some additional crime either unrelated to her acts as Secretary of State/e-mails/Benghazi or committed some new crime after that.
Because you could not possible just fire more than one long range missile now could you. As far as other weapons we don't exactly strife people in fields very often. Usually you employ long range artillery to soften up a target like that.
Fighters are to valuable, and can't really carry much ordinance, the the multiple missile argument is a little silly. When it comes to defeating missile shields and intercept systems is quantity not quality. In terms of a cost effective means of attack its probably cheaper to fire hundreds of guided misses from some near by ground you and simply overwhelm your opponents AA and intercept systems than it is to try and fire tens of really smart missiles with very high-end maneuverability and flight characteristics along with all the sensor equipment to enable them to evade AA and intercept weapons; fired from fighters, or otherwise.
That may be true but when its one guy scamming 5000 people out of $50 then that are bit bigger fish. I don't think anyone is authoring crypto malware in hopes of only scamming a handful of people out of $50 not worth the trouble. They either hope to hit a large number of individuals or a sizable organization the can take for a large sum in one shot. Either way they go about it their own success should make them big enough to be interesting to law enforcement.
At that point I think a follow the money type investigation should be able to produce some pretty solid evidence against these criminals, and BitCoin should make it easier to prove that case not harder as compared with cash after traditional laundering schemes have been employed.
Yes but only because law enforcement and the courts have not figured things out yet. Compared to say cause and money laundered through other more conventional meas, its should be much easier to trace BitCoin. I mean you can follow the money back thru all the wallets its passed through. So it should be easy to 'find' coins that have been thru that wallet. Talk to all the people who accepted those coins and work backward. No sure the ransom-ware operators can do things to make that harder by say moving the money thru a bunch of internal wallets, but even that is going to create traceable events.
Once a BitCoin is hot its effectively always hot. Its like sting operations where LEO's pay criminals with bills they have noted the serial numbers... If law enforcement got its act together and worked on understanding the technology rather than trying to regulate it out of existence, backdoor it etc, they might discover it already does a lot of their hard work for them. I suspect BitCoin may prove to be a liability for the criminals; more so than the old cash dead drop method.
Are you sure, i am not a medical doctor or even a biologist but it seems like studying how some of our processes behave under abnormal situations might be very interesting. Some of the behaviors might be useful for preserving life if we could trigger them on demand. They might be things we could identify and guard against when trying to save someone.
"His kidneys are shutting down" - Well okay why is that, can me maybe make them not do that, instead of prescribing dialysis and an eventual kidney transplant?
Which is not to suggest doctors don't try to make them not do that today thur various means and don't understand any of the causes but there could be opportunities to stop or reverse things like organ failure, if we thoroughly understood the process of failing.
Well on some level though we have already made these moral decisions as a society. Paramedics and ER docs are trained to triage. Yes they do address the people who are in the most immediate jeopardy of life first, but of those they focus on the ones the suspect can be saved and the ones they suspect are to badly injured are moved to the back of the line at least within the class of people immediately endangered.
The issue when it comes to cars is that we don't usually get to make choices. Once a dangerous situation emerges probably the majority of the time things happen so fast that our wetware and limited information gathering capabilities don't allow for much more then self preservation mode. There are no resources available to try and count the number of potential victims inside the minivan the next lane over. If there is a whole big enough for one vehicle to slip thru between the oncoming traffic, that solid object the isn't supposed to be there until now obscured by the fog, and the stone wall to your right you take it because that is the only decision you have time to make.
A computer and sensor array *could* make other choices and consider other information.
No that isn't the same. The reason is not the baker or grocery store owner is some rich guy though. The issue is your need and own desperation. A lot usual mores go out the window when your survival is at stake. Its not normally ethical to use violence against someone but if you are forced to defend yourself from violence it certainly is; same thing.
So yes if you are stealing to prevent yourself and loved ones from starvation, fine you get some kind of a pass, providing you are only stealing what it takes to meet your immediate need. So yes you may purloin a loaf of bread in some circumstances but it hard to image any circumstance where its even remotely okay to execute some kind of complex hightech medical fraud scheme.
So just to be clear less ok to steal from some people then others. Does that spectrum run all the way to it being actually ok to steal from some people?
If someone is healthy wealthy and strong enough, are others morally entitled to rip them off? If everyone ripped them off would they still be wealthy?
I was taught it wrong to take things that don't belong to you and are not freely given.
Don't be silly its not a flowed argument, there are major industries like the German auto industry that sells almost a 5th of its output to the UK. Backroom deals will be struck. The UK could put capital controls on the London financial sector if it really want to twist arms. No there are to many interests in keeping trade greased. Its to 'easy' for the EC to make special arrangements with a non member that will escape notice in a way that granting those same concessions to a member state would.
There are to many individual member states that have specific industrial relationships who would quietly support generally good trade terms with UK out of their own self interest.
Or its ignorant propagandized young people people who are still hopeful they are going to get something out of the 'promise of the eu' who don't realize that globalism while makes for nice feel good politics is really the underlying force behind the death of middle class and the expand wealth gap.
I am not a Brit and even I will call BS on that one. Just about every country ever ruled by GB benefited handsomely. Just look around the world. Most former GB colonies have good economies, stable cultures and systems of government, all things they got by being civilized by GB.
Compare that with former colonies of other powers, which by and large are not nearly such a pretty picture. GB's former hegemony over much of the world did far far more good than bad, especially in terms of rights and equality. Just like they American hegemony of the past 70 years or so has.
Can you offer some evidence for that, like someone who has done some recent writing or some recent polling?
I find it hard to accept there is a lot of fear about something 99% of the population is to young to remember. Even if someone was alive in 1923, they would unlikely to have been old enough to understand anything about what was going on.
The EU has the Lisbon treaty because they could not enact a Constitution! Lets face it the golf between the technocrats and the Uber rich and the general population is to great! The have been trying to "do this" to Europe since the 1920's. Sadly they have nearly browbeaten the population into it.
I heard a story on NPR yesterday about a couple living in a âlittle Britainâ(TM) someplace along the Spanish coast and I wondered what the local Spaniards thought of all that. A culture that does not seek to preserve itself has something broken about it. Which is not say that cultures should not change as they encounter others, but that they should appropriate and integrate ideas on their own terms, not have a massive outside group move in remake a place in their own image through sheer force of numbers. The melting pot has worked wonders itâ(TM)s made a more vibrate dynamic America than could have been possible without immigration. Multiculturalism on the other hand is a failure, it does not lead to integration and we experiencing the results of what happens when you have âoesecond generation immigrants;â Orlando. Nations need to be able to control flow of immigration and they need to be able to set terms for integration, like learn the local language and prove you have the resources to support yourself. They owe that to their current citizens!
Should there be an integrated Europe? Speaking as an outsider, I think so for very valid economic reasons, defense reasons, and for the sake of peace that answer is probably also yes. The current model though with EU government being as powerful as it is and at the same time as uncountable to local voters as its violates the idea of government by consent. No people should allow that. We should be thinking hard about whoever we vote for in November will treat the 9th and 10th Amendments.
I think the British people did what they had to do to save themselves here! Here is the problem though. Its a nonbinding resolution. I can all but grantee the 'remain forces' within the UK government and their EU allies will try once more to renegotiate the deal. The UK will probably be given a token concession or two, the 'remain forces' will then not vote in parliament to leave. They will claim the public opinion has shifted (it only has to move a few points), in the wake of the short term economic events and that they wont hold another referendum to test that because it would be 'to costly'. In short I don't think the UK is out of their chains just yet.
Guys the "digital" logo for this is totally off. I can see for the history of posts in this "topic" that its pretty much being used for all things electronic media. I don't know if the "digital" topic was co-opted from being discussions about DEC or not. If it was fine it clearly happened a long time ago. Can we stop using the DEC logo though? Its seriously confusing and kinda of a sad use of a symbol that was once associated with something actually important to the history of the computing industry
So what you want us to believe you won't have the same problems with the lightening connector? I am sure those tiny little traces and contact pins won't show any mechanical wear or oxidation issues ever....
The difference of course being with the analog link you *can* wiggle it around and you'll get immediate feedback if the connection is improved. The delay the digital connection adds means you won't get that feedback. So it will be much harder to say fiddle with using only your left hand while driving and expect to make any kind of progress. Your complain might be fair but Apple's "answer" makes the problem worse not better.
And just exactly why should the government know when you buy a car (they actually don't they know when you register a car)? Why should they know when you withdraw a large sum of money from the bank another private entry, that you work with? Its all your personal property and none of the business and should not be unless there is probably suspicion of a crime.
Its also true that unlike your VERY EXPLICIT Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms, there is no such explicit right to keep and drive autos, only implicit ones under the 9th and 10th. So that is another difference, that may be key. The government could in theory legislate away your right to operate and potentially own that car, so they have an implicit interest in tracking ownership. They cannot legislate away your right to own a gun, well except under completely bogus SCOTUS rulings that upheld the assault weapons ban and the fire arms control act etc. So many (maybe most) gun owners rightly feel that baring the effective tracking and registry of weapons is sensible as it provides a barrier to government abuse.
Personal safety should be absolute, and the right to religion isn't more important.
well a lot of people of faith will disagree with you. Many consider the state of their eternal soul to be more important than their lives. On a more technical grounds I would argue the framers did not agree either. There is some reason to think the Bill of rights ordering implies their importance at the time. All the freedom of religion stuff is in the First Amendment, all the due process stuff that guarantees freedom of life and property stuff comes later in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
I am not totally in disagreement. I just think we have a Constitution, having hard fast rules and sticking by them is in the end what keeps us free. Every time we water the Bill of Rights down or rather allow Congress or SCOTUS to do it we run the risk of turning the Constitution into just paper. Hate Speech laws are the perfect example, speech is speech the rules that support and uphold those laws are terrible decisions for the most part. If we have a problem in that from an administrative societal standpoint we can't strictly honor the Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights, we should the amendment process provided, not pretend words have different meanings and try to read exceptions in between the lines.
In 1998 the 1.4MB capacity of the floppy was already severely limiting. While there were still a largish number of system being used on a day to day basis that did not have some better alternative available like USB or writable optical of some sort and alternatives like Zip, Jazz, SuperDisk, SyQuest etc were hardly universal and not always even ubiquitous; it was clear to everyone that the floppy was limiting.
There were a lots of jobs where the floppy was perfectly adequate and even the easiest route but in 1998 it was possible to create a word processing document that did not fit on the standard 1.4MB diskette, all you needed was to include a high res picture or two. Once you had a single files to large for a diskette you were down the path of splitting them somehow which usually implied some software your recipient did not have and kill the whole universality thing. So people had good reasons to want to "move on" from diskettes beyond just the fact that Apple did not feel like offering diskette drives as standard equipment anymore.
Compare this with the 3.5mm jack (at least the modified and backward compatible 4 conductor variety that supports mics). It delivers just about everything you could want as far as getting audio headsets. It offers better fidelity than most of the alternative solutions, bluetooth etc. Its possible to run headsets with some smarts and implement signaling like vol up/dn, next track, in devices while still being compatible with cheapo dumb headsets. Its fairly rugged, easy to blow dust out of with canned air, being round a pulled cable usual 'pops out' without damaging either the cable or the receptacle at anything but fairly extreme angles. Essentially if offers me and I think most users just about everything they could want in an audio jack. Unlike the diskette of 1998 its not evident at least not to me that its facing near term inadequacy for any common application.
As to the thickness arguments, well the camera is really still the limiting factor there. The foot print of a 3.5mm jack in smart phone is not preventing larger batters, that is just strait up BS. Once you already have to have a bump out to accommodate the camera, I am not sure making the rest of the device thinner than that adds value, especially when almost everyone puts these things in some kind of protective box anyway. Most people I talk to use a case not only for protection but because the thing is so thin its actually akward to hold and operate one handed without it!
Consider: organized gambling has a negative expected benefit, and pretty much everyone knows it. If people behaved rationally, there would be no market for casinos, but plenty of people are convinced that they can beat the odds, or enjoy the thrill, or become addicted to the random positive feedback, or any number of other reasons for partaking despite knowing they will almost certainly lose.
Possibly but I know guys who just want to be entertained. Some of the games can have their outcomes optimized significantly if you understand them and apply strategy and thought. If you don't bet recklessly you can 'play' all evening on a few hundred bucks (winning occasionally) and enjoying a few drinks on the house while you are at it before you go bust. If you enjoy playing, I can see that being as rational an entertainment choice as any other.
Now I would rather go out for a nice steak dinner and good bottle of wine followed by a movie or some other spectator event but that is a personal preference. At the end of my big night out, I'll have no more than a memory same as the guy who went to the casino most likely.
The reason they are arrogant is because people just go along with them. I know several doctors and surgeons personally. They are a bit like IT people living in an ivory tower within their profession. And a surgeon is in no way middle management.
Are you quite sure they don't just seem arrogant because of the way they are being forced to respond to your attitude. I do IT consulting. Usually middle management brings us in to help solve a problem they don't feel their support team can handle, but after the introductions are over that is usually who we are working with. Sometimes I encounter really sharp guys who really deserve the confidence of management and should been listened to / allowed to run with solving the problems on their own. Sometimes I meat guys like that that are glad we are their because even though they have the right plan or at least on one I can agree with in mind, they want us available to be blamed if something does go wrong. Sometimes they are really out of the depth, know it and are glad for the help. I can work with any those types; I am genuinely interesting in their ideas and insights they know the organization better than i do and may have an equal and occasional better grasp of the technology.
Sometimes though you get the know it all network admin or developer who thinks all their own ideas are like the most amazing ever and that nobody has ever tried them before. Their ideas are divinely inspired so no matter how much you try and explain how that model has not worked, currently isnt working, can't be sustained, is to risky for upper management to accept, only actually saves money while 'you Mr. Rockstar are willing to work 80 weeks', etc makes no impression on them. At that point you are kinda forced to simply go with 'listen I have been there done that got the t-shirt, its not a good plan and we not doing it that way. Please don't make me have to tell ${YOUR BOSS} you are not cooperating.' I am sure that comes off as extremely arrogant, but what choice do you have at that point?
You might be putting your doctors in the same position. Look at it from their perspective. They have profession ethics that don't allow them to just 'write scrips' they come in under the assumption that you have hired them for their expert opinion and skills, and are quite reasonably surprised to find you hostile to their advice.
The only real fix I see to this is to associate a CC or ID with the ticket purchase
Actually that would be pretty good solution. The airlines will have you swipe a CC and enter your destination airport to look up your e-ticket / reservation. Does not have to be the CC used to buy the ticket they are only using it to get your name. Reading mag strips is fast.
For gifting simply supply the name of the recipient when you buy the tickets.
When someone buys a ticket associate a pin with the name send them the pin on the receipt.
So at the show, its swipe + pin. Now TM does not even have to print and mail physical tickets. Its all just data and tokens people already have. TM has just increased their margin.
You can handle resales, online too, the original purchaser logs on and marks the ticket as resold to to person X and is given a new pin which they provide to person X, person X than logs on and buys the ticket with a credit or debit card in their name and enters the pin, TM issues a new final PIN. TM collects the funds, takes a percentage (of course) and finally credits the original purchasers card. This way they can close the scalping hole and double dip at the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
rather has to wait until numerous people have suffered for the lack of it. You're also calling for metrics that don't really exist.
Well yes and the SCOTUS essentially ruled yesterday that Texas can't impose safety regulations on abortion providers because abortion is 'right' (disagree personally) and the procedure appears to be to safe (which is funny because its about the only medical procedure I am aware that is almost universally fatal). So the states interest in ensuring safety does not offer a reason for regulation and imposes an undue burden.
Well okay, by that logic you can't regulate anything (remember the 9th and 10th Amendments now we have rights to do essentially anything until its taken away) until there is A proof that it poses some actual harm in practice to an explicitly stated interest of the government, and your proposed regulation must be demonstrably useful in accomplishing that interest.
So before SF can do this it must:
1) Explain what its trying to accomplish
2) Explain how its objectives are not presently being met
3) Explain how the proposed regulation will meet such objects and provide evidence of their efficacy
So yes lets apply this standard everywhere, best ruling ever as far as limiting the role government is potentially concerned, when used broadly.
I think the SCOTUS BS undue burden ruling on abortion yesterday should be taken and run with. I think any regulation where the state does not have solid evidence is effective at addressing an explicitly stated objective which restricts someones rights in anyway ( In this case AirBnb's right to advertise rent able units ) should be automatically considered unconstitutional.
Lets exploit this shabby reasoning to its max.
Hubris indeed; a 29 year old decided that he knew better than the hundreds of elected officials that we the people appointed to make these sorts of decisions on our behalf. Nobody elected him or entrusted him with this sort of power, he just took it for himself.
Wait lets get our facts strait. Its not hundreds of elected officials, its 10s if that. Only a small number of people on the intelligence committees and POTUS would have known anything about the stuff Snowden revealed. He arguably did and does know better than the rest of the hundreds of elected peoples in the House and Senate because he had access to inside information and ample evidence that they were being lied to in testimony given by intelligence officials. We don't know what the intelligence committee people might have known or how accurate the information they had was; while it was CIA not NSA you will recall the issue of Senate computers being hacked during the black-site/torture investigations.
Was it Hubris, maybe but get your facts strait.
He broke the law while being a conservative, its one of those things like walking while black. Radically different standards depending on who you are.
In fact, she'd be impeached even with the pardon....
That actually sounds like a sticky legal question. The Senate has to convict you of high crimes, but if you were pardoned preemptively like Nixon for all crimes related to...
Than you can't really be convicted, a pardon is not like having you sentence commuted it removes the conviction, not just the punitive measure. So I don't know if the senate could legally remove her from office at all, unless she committed some additional crime either unrelated to her acts as Secretary of State/e-mails/Benghazi or committed some new crime after that.
Because you could not possible just fire more than one long range missile now could you. As far as other weapons we don't exactly strife people in fields very often. Usually you employ long range artillery to soften up a target like that.
Fighters are to valuable, and can't really carry much ordinance, the the multiple missile argument is a little silly. When it comes to defeating missile shields and intercept systems is quantity not quality. In terms of a cost effective means of attack its probably cheaper to fire hundreds of guided misses from some near by ground you and simply overwhelm your opponents AA and intercept systems than it is to try and fire tens of really smart missiles with very high-end maneuverability and flight characteristics along with all the sensor equipment to enable them to evade AA and intercept weapons; fired from fighters, or otherwise.
That may be true but when its one guy scamming 5000 people out of $50 then that are bit bigger fish. I don't think anyone is authoring crypto malware in hopes of only scamming a handful of people out of $50 not worth the trouble. They either hope to hit a large number of individuals or a sizable organization the can take for a large sum in one shot. Either way they go about it their own success should make them big enough to be interesting to law enforcement.
At that point I think a follow the money type investigation should be able to produce some pretty solid evidence against these criminals, and BitCoin should make it easier to prove that case not harder as compared with cash after traditional laundering schemes have been employed.
Yes but only because law enforcement and the courts have not figured things out yet. Compared to say cause and money laundered through other more conventional meas, its should be much easier to trace BitCoin. I mean you can follow the money back thru all the wallets its passed through. So it should be easy to 'find' coins that have been thru that wallet. Talk to all the people who accepted those coins and work backward. No sure the ransom-ware operators can do things to make that harder by say moving the money thru a bunch of internal wallets, but even that is going to create traceable events.
Once a BitCoin is hot its effectively always hot. Its like sting operations where LEO's pay criminals with bills they have noted the serial numbers... If law enforcement got its act together and worked on understanding the technology rather than trying to regulate it out of existence, backdoor it etc, they might discover it already does a lot of their hard work for them. I suspect BitCoin may prove to be a liability for the criminals; more so than the old cash dead drop method.
just vestigial precesses. Not interesting.
Are you sure, i am not a medical doctor or even a biologist but it seems like studying how some of our processes behave under abnormal situations might be very interesting. Some of the behaviors might be useful for preserving life if we could trigger them on demand. They might be things we could identify and guard against when trying to save someone.
"His kidneys are shutting down" - Well okay why is that, can me maybe make them not do that, instead of prescribing dialysis and an eventual kidney transplant?
Which is not to suggest doctors don't try to make them not do that today thur various means and don't understand any of the causes but there could be opportunities to stop or reverse things like organ failure, if we thoroughly understood the process of failing.
Well on some level though we have already made these moral decisions as a society. Paramedics and ER docs are trained to triage. Yes they do address the people who are in the most immediate jeopardy of life first, but of those they focus on the ones the suspect can be saved and the ones they suspect are to badly injured are moved to the back of the line at least within the class of people immediately endangered.
The issue when it comes to cars is that we don't usually get to make choices. Once a dangerous situation emerges probably the majority of the time things happen so fast that our wetware and limited information gathering capabilities don't allow for much more then self preservation mode. There are no resources available to try and count the number of potential victims inside the minivan the next lane over. If there is a whole big enough for one vehicle to slip thru between the oncoming traffic, that solid object the isn't supposed to be there until now obscured by the fog, and the stone wall to your right you take it because that is the only decision you have time to make.
A computer and sensor array *could* make other choices and consider other information.
No that isn't the same. The reason is not the baker or grocery store owner is some rich guy though. The issue is your need and own desperation. A lot usual mores go out the window when your survival is at stake. Its not normally ethical to use violence against someone but if you are forced to defend yourself from violence it certainly is; same thing.
So yes if you are stealing to prevent yourself and loved ones from starvation, fine you get some kind of a pass, providing you are only stealing what it takes to meet your immediate need. So yes you may purloin a loaf of bread in some circumstances but it hard to image any circumstance where its even remotely okay to execute some kind of complex hightech medical fraud scheme.
So just to be clear less ok to steal from some people then others. Does that spectrum run all the way to it being actually ok to steal from some people?
If someone is healthy wealthy and strong enough, are others morally entitled to rip them off? If everyone ripped them off would they still be wealthy?
I was taught it wrong to take things that don't belong to you and are not freely given.
Don't be silly its not a flowed argument, there are major industries like the German auto industry that sells almost a 5th of its output to the UK. Backroom deals will be struck. The UK could put capital controls on the London financial sector if it really want to twist arms. No there are to many interests in keeping trade greased. Its to 'easy' for the EC to make special arrangements with a non member that will escape notice in a way that granting those same concessions to a member state would.
There are to many individual member states that have specific industrial relationships who would quietly support generally good trade terms with UK out of their own self interest.
Or its ignorant propagandized young people people who are still hopeful they are going to get something out of the 'promise of the eu' who don't realize that globalism while makes for nice feel good politics is really the underlying force behind the death of middle class and the expand wealth gap.
I am not a Brit and even I will call BS on that one. Just about every country ever ruled by GB benefited handsomely. Just look around the world. Most former GB colonies have good economies, stable cultures and systems of government, all things they got by being civilized by GB.
Compare that with former colonies of other powers, which by and large are not nearly such a pretty picture. GB's former hegemony over much of the world did far far more good than bad, especially in terms of rights and equality. Just like they American hegemony of the past 70 years or so has.
Can you offer some evidence for that, like someone who has done some recent writing or some recent polling?
I find it hard to accept there is a lot of fear about something 99% of the population is to young to remember. Even if someone was alive in 1923, they would unlikely to have been old enough to understand anything about what was going on.
The EU has the Lisbon treaty because they could not enact a Constitution! Lets face it the golf between the technocrats and the Uber rich and the general population is to great! The have been trying to "do this" to Europe since the 1920's. Sadly they have nearly browbeaten the population into it.
I heard a story on NPR yesterday about a couple living in a âlittle Britainâ(TM) someplace along the Spanish coast and I wondered what the local Spaniards thought of all that. A culture that does not seek to preserve itself has something broken about it. Which is not say that cultures should not change as they encounter others, but that they should appropriate and integrate ideas on their own terms, not have a massive outside group move in remake a place in their own image through sheer force of numbers. The melting pot has worked wonders itâ(TM)s made a more vibrate dynamic America than could have been possible without immigration. Multiculturalism on the other hand is a failure, it does not lead to integration and we experiencing the results of what happens when you have âoesecond generation immigrants;â Orlando. Nations need to be able to control flow of immigration and they need to be able to set terms for integration, like learn the local language and prove you have the resources to support yourself. They owe that to their current citizens!
Should there be an integrated Europe? Speaking as an outsider, I think so for very valid economic reasons, defense reasons, and for the sake of peace that answer is probably also yes. The current model though with EU government being as powerful as it is and at the same time as uncountable to local voters as its violates the idea of government by consent. No people should allow that. We should be thinking hard about whoever we vote for in November will treat the 9th and 10th Amendments.
I think the British people did what they had to do to save themselves here! Here is the problem though. Its a nonbinding resolution. I can all but grantee the 'remain forces' within the UK government and their EU allies will try once more to renegotiate the deal. The UK will probably be given a token concession or two, the 'remain forces' will then not vote in parliament to leave. They will claim the public opinion has shifted (it only has to move a few points), in the wake of the short term economic events and that they wont hold another referendum to test that because it would be 'to costly'. In short I don't think the UK is out of their chains just yet.
Guys the "digital" logo for this is totally off. I can see for the history of posts in this "topic" that its pretty much being used for all things electronic media. I don't know if the "digital" topic was co-opted from being discussions about DEC or not. If it was fine it clearly happened a long time ago. Can we stop using the DEC logo though? Its seriously confusing and kinda of a sad use of a symbol that was once associated with something actually important to the history of the computing industry
So what you want us to believe you won't have the same problems with the lightening connector? I am sure those tiny little traces and contact pins won't show any mechanical wear or oxidation issues ever....
The difference of course being with the analog link you *can* wiggle it around and you'll get immediate feedback if the connection is improved. The delay the digital connection adds means you won't get that feedback. So it will be much harder to say fiddle with using only your left hand while driving and expect to make any kind of progress. Your complain might be fair but Apple's "answer" makes the problem worse not better.
And just exactly why should the government know when you buy a car (they actually don't they know when you register a car)? Why should they know when you withdraw a large sum of money from the bank another private entry, that you work with? Its all your personal property and none of the business and should not be unless there is probably suspicion of a crime.
Its also true that unlike your VERY EXPLICIT Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms, there is no such explicit right to keep and drive autos, only implicit ones under the 9th and 10th. So that is another difference, that may be key. The government could in theory legislate away your right to operate and potentially own that car, so they have an implicit interest in tracking ownership. They cannot legislate away your right to own a gun, well except under completely bogus SCOTUS rulings that upheld the assault weapons ban and the fire arms control act etc. So many (maybe most) gun owners rightly feel that baring the effective tracking and registry of weapons is sensible as it provides a barrier to government abuse.
Personal safety should be absolute, and the right to religion isn't more important.
well a lot of people of faith will disagree with you. Many consider the state of their eternal soul to be more important than their lives. On a more technical grounds I would argue the framers did not agree either. There is some reason to think the Bill of rights ordering implies their importance at the time. All the freedom of religion stuff is in the First Amendment, all the due process stuff that guarantees freedom of life and property stuff comes later in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
I am not totally in disagreement. I just think we have a Constitution, having hard fast rules and sticking by them is in the end what keeps us free. Every time we water the Bill of Rights down or rather allow Congress or SCOTUS to do it we run the risk of turning the Constitution into just paper. Hate Speech laws are the perfect example, speech is speech the rules that support and uphold those laws are terrible decisions for the most part. If we have a problem in that from an administrative societal standpoint we can't strictly honor the Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights, we should the amendment process provided, not pretend words have different meanings and try to read exceptions in between the lines.
In 1998 the 1.4MB capacity of the floppy was already severely limiting. While there were still a largish number of system being used on a day to day basis that did not have some better alternative available like USB or writable optical of some sort and alternatives like Zip, Jazz, SuperDisk, SyQuest etc were hardly universal and not always even ubiquitous; it was clear to everyone that the floppy was limiting.
There were a lots of jobs where the floppy was perfectly adequate and even the easiest route but in 1998 it was possible to create a word processing document that did not fit on the standard 1.4MB diskette, all you needed was to include a high res picture or two. Once you had a single files to large for a diskette you were down the path of splitting them somehow which usually implied some software your recipient did not have and kill the whole universality thing. So people had good reasons to want to "move on" from diskettes beyond just the fact that Apple did not feel like offering diskette drives as standard equipment anymore.
Compare this with the 3.5mm jack (at least the modified and backward compatible 4 conductor variety that supports mics). It delivers just about everything you could want as far as getting audio headsets. It offers better fidelity than most of the alternative solutions, bluetooth etc. Its possible to run headsets with some smarts and implement signaling like vol up/dn, next track, in devices while still being compatible with cheapo dumb headsets. Its fairly rugged, easy to blow dust out of with canned air, being round a pulled cable usual 'pops out' without damaging either the cable or the receptacle at anything but fairly extreme angles. Essentially if offers me and I think most users just about everything they could want in an audio jack. Unlike the diskette of 1998 its not evident at least not to me that its facing near term inadequacy for any common application.
As to the thickness arguments, well the camera is really still the limiting factor there. The foot print of a 3.5mm jack in smart phone is not preventing larger batters, that is just strait up BS. Once you already have to have a bump out to accommodate the camera, I am not sure making the rest of the device thinner than that adds value, especially when almost everyone puts these things in some kind of protective box anyway. Most people I talk to use a case not only for protection but because the thing is so thin its actually akward to hold and operate one handed without it!
Consider: organized gambling has a negative expected benefit, and pretty much everyone knows it. If people behaved rationally, there would be no market for casinos, but plenty of people are convinced that they can beat the odds, or enjoy the thrill, or become addicted to the random positive feedback, or any number of other reasons for partaking despite knowing they will almost certainly lose.
Possibly but I know guys who just want to be entertained. Some of the games can have their outcomes optimized significantly if you understand them and apply strategy and thought. If you don't bet recklessly you can 'play' all evening on a few hundred bucks (winning occasionally) and enjoying a few drinks on the house while you are at it before you go bust. If you enjoy playing, I can see that being as rational an entertainment choice as any other.
Now I would rather go out for a nice steak dinner and good bottle of wine followed by a movie or some other spectator event but that is a personal preference. At the end of my big night out, I'll have no more than a memory same as the guy who went to the casino most likely.
The reason they are arrogant is because people just go along with them. I know several doctors and surgeons personally. They are a bit like IT people living in an ivory tower within their profession. And a surgeon is in no way middle management.
Are you quite sure they don't just seem arrogant because of the way they are being forced to respond to your attitude. I do IT consulting. Usually middle management brings us in to help solve a problem they don't feel their support team can handle, but after the introductions are over that is usually who we are working with. Sometimes I encounter really sharp guys who really deserve the confidence of management and should been listened to / allowed to run with solving the problems on their own. Sometimes I meat guys like that that are glad we are their because even though they have the right plan or at least on one I can agree with in mind, they want us available to be blamed if something does go wrong. Sometimes they are really out of the depth, know it and are glad for the help. I can work with any those types; I am genuinely interesting in their ideas and insights they know the organization better than i do and may have an equal and occasional better grasp of the technology.
Sometimes though you get the know it all network admin or developer who thinks all their own ideas are like the most amazing ever and that nobody has ever tried them before. Their ideas are divinely inspired so no matter how much you try and explain how that model has not worked, currently isnt working, can't be sustained, is to risky for upper management to accept, only actually saves money while 'you Mr. Rockstar are willing to work 80 weeks', etc makes no impression on them. At that point you are kinda forced to simply go with 'listen I have been there done that got the t-shirt, its not a good plan and we not doing it that way. Please don't make me have to tell ${YOUR BOSS} you are not cooperating.' I am sure that comes off as extremely arrogant, but what choice do you have at that point?
You might be putting your doctors in the same position. Look at it from their perspective. They have profession ethics that don't allow them to just 'write scrips' they come in under the assumption that you have hired them for their expert opinion and skills, and are quite reasonably surprised to find you hostile to their advice.
The only real fix I see to this is to associate a CC or ID with the ticket purchase
Actually that would be pretty good solution. The airlines will have you swipe a CC and enter your destination airport to look up your e-ticket / reservation. Does not have to be the CC used to buy the ticket they are only using it to get your name. Reading mag strips is fast.
For gifting simply supply the name of the recipient when you buy the tickets.
When someone buys a ticket associate a pin with the name send them the pin on the receipt.
So at the show, its swipe + pin. Now TM does not even have to print and mail physical tickets. Its all just data and tokens people already have. TM has just increased their margin.
You can handle resales, online too, the original purchaser logs on and marks the ticket as resold to to person X and is given a new pin which they provide to person X, person X than logs on and buys the ticket with a credit or debit card in their name and enters the pin, TM issues a new final PIN. TM collects the funds, takes a percentage (of course) and finally credits the original purchasers card. This way they can close the scalping hole and double dip at the same time.