Exclusivity agreements of this kind should be considered illegal by default. They are bad for society, and we've seen this in so many ways.
It's what Microsoft was doing to keep Linux down. It's what Intel did to keep their competitors down. I heard something (on NPR I think the other day) about how syringe manufacturers used it to keep an innovative syringe design off the market, because it was a third party syringe. The hospitals wouldn't buy it, despite the fact that it was better, because of exclusivity agreements.
My guess is it goes until someone can prove damages in some way, at which point it becomes fraud. I think "Impersonating an Officer" only is against the law if you do it with the intent to commit a crime. Certainly actors do it all the time.
A similar case went before the supreme court recently. A man was wearing an army uniform, claiming to have won medals and be a decorated war hero. That is against the law, so the government took him to court.
The supreme court found that the first amendment protected his right to lie about being a war hero, even though it was highly deceptive and disgusting. They will likely find the same in this case about engineers (unless he actually caused damage, which he didn't, and for that matter he didn't even lie, he actually is an electronics engineer).
The first amendment comes into play in civil cases as well. An example is eviction cases where you can't be evicted for exercising your constitutional right to free speech (at least in California, not sure about other states).
Electronics engineering is a valid degree in some non-US countries.
It's a valid degree in the US. I took some EE classes in my computer science undergrad. Other people got the full degree. We even have a professional organization for them: IEEE. And it's highly respected.
No, it is not. The 1st amendment does not legally "protect" you for lying.
The first amendment protects your lies unless you literally (and provably) cause damage to someone else. That is my understanding of the relevant court cases.
And that's totally true: Watson was a program built to play Jeopardy, but now has become a blanket marketing term for many products inside IBM, some of which have nothing to do with AI at all. So who knows what they are even doing there. Some kind of data mining, but other than that........
Yeah, you are right. But it is different again when it is free money, when you don't have to pay any extra taxes (unlike welfare, where I pay taxes when another guy gets paid).
We might have more jobs in absolute terms, but we also have more population. What's relevant is the relationship between the two, which I think is best measured by the workforce participation rate.
You're absolutely right that "absolute number of jobs" doesn't really capture the whole picture. Labor force participation rate doesn't capture it either though, since it includes people who drop out of the workforce because they are old, or because they have children, or other reasons.
Yeah, that's dogmatism. You can ask yourself, "If someone came up with a solution that works, and didn't follow my ideology, would I accept it?" If your answer is no, then you're dogmatic.
Artificial stars work here, too. The Archies had some hits, and Gorillaz did too (admittedly they have a real voice, but that can be switched out easily enough).
I know you foe-ed me, but I wonder if you realize: you are the one who dogmatically insists on a single-payer solution. I'm happy with anything that works.
Way to be dogmatic.
tbh I'll favor the first healthcare plan that looks somewhat competent. Single payer? Sure! But it has to be more than "just do single payer and problem is solved." Let's see the actual plan. Free market? Fine, but again, let's see the actual plan.
Yeap but when the free money came to Michelle, did she complain? Nope, she accepted it happily. This is past tense, it's something she's already done. I don't know if Limbaugh ever did that.
Slashdot Mirror
Exclusivity agreements of this kind should be considered illegal by default. They are bad for society, and we've seen this in so many ways.
It's what Microsoft was doing to keep Linux down. It's what Intel did to keep their competitors down. I heard something (on NPR I think the other day) about how syringe manufacturers used it to keep an innovative syringe design off the market, because it was a third party syringe. The hospitals wouldn't buy it, despite the fact that it was better, because of exclusivity agreements.
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.
My guess is it goes until someone can prove damages in some way, at which point it becomes fraud. I think "Impersonating an Officer" only is against the law if you do it with the intent to commit a crime. Certainly actors do it all the time.
I would definitely support a solution that works, whatever it is. However, it would have to work for everyone and work reasonably well.
Good, you're not completely dogmatic.
It would have to be a progressive, not regressive solution.
wtf is a progressive solution.
A similar case went before the supreme court recently. A man was wearing an army uniform, claiming to have won medals and be a decorated war hero. That is against the law, so the government took him to court.
The supreme court found that the first amendment protected his right to lie about being a war hero, even though it was highly deceptive and disgusting. They will likely find the same in this case about engineers (unless he actually caused damage, which he didn't, and for that matter he didn't even lie, he actually is an electronics engineer).
The first amendment comes into play in civil cases as well. An example is eviction cases where you can't be evicted for exercising your constitutional right to free speech (at least in California, not sure about other states).
Electronics engineering is a valid degree in some non-US countries.
It's a valid degree in the US. I took some EE classes in my computer science undergrad. Other people got the full degree. We even have a professional organization for them: IEEE. And it's highly respected.
No, it is not. The 1st amendment does not legally "protect" you for lying.
The first amendment protects your lies unless you literally (and provably) cause damage to someone else. That is my understanding of the relevant court cases.
And that's totally true: Watson was a program built to play Jeopardy, but now has become a blanket marketing term for many products inside IBM, some of which have nothing to do with AI at all. So who knows what they are even doing there. Some kind of data mining, but other than that........
At some point in time they decided to complete with Ask Jeeves and become an "answer engine." Good luck with that.
It was shortly after Microsoft made a deal with Wolfram Alpha to do the same thing. Google had a huge push after that to give answers and such.
Yeah, you are right. But it is different again when it is free money, when you don't have to pay any extra taxes (unlike welfare, where I pay taxes when another guy gets paid).
and their health care is so much less expensive than ours?
What numbers exactly are you looking at here? Are you including costs for cosmetic surgery or something?
We might have more jobs in absolute terms, but we also have more population. What's relevant is the relationship between the two, which I think is best measured by the workforce participation rate.
You're absolutely right that "absolute number of jobs" doesn't really capture the whole picture. Labor force participation rate doesn't capture it either though, since it includes people who drop out of the workforce because they are old, or because they have children, or other reasons.
Yeah, that's dogmatism. You can ask yourself, "If someone came up with a solution that works, and didn't follow my ideology, would I accept it?" If your answer is no, then you're dogmatic.
Artificial stars work here, too. The Archies had some hits, and Gorillaz did too (admittedly they have a real voice, but that can be switched out easily enough).
Way to knock down a strawman. Applause. Now, go learn what the real arguments are.
Yeap. I really want my own galaxy. Cruise around in it, etc.
I'd like to see trapless welfare.
That's a good idea.
I know you foe-ed me, but I wonder if you realize: you are the one who dogmatically insists on a single-payer solution. I'm happy with anything that works.
Way to be dogmatic.
As I pointed out, we're not starting from scratch so you could easily say: I favor Sweden's, or France's or Germany's mixed with England's whatever.
You can easily say it, but not easily implement it. The fact that you can't realize that means you have some kind of brain defect or something.
It's already happened. Here's another one.
I know pretty much nothing about Aneurin Bevan, and don't understand why you want me to tell him anything.
If not that, what would you propose?
tbh I'll favor the first healthcare plan that looks somewhat competent. Single payer? Sure! But it has to be more than "just do single payer and problem is solved." Let's see the actual plan. Free market? Fine, but again, let's see the actual plan.
Oh yes, she is a total hypocrite. And she will take free money just like the rest of us if she can.
Why do you think that?
Yeap but when the free money came to Michelle, did she complain? Nope, she accepted it happily. This is past tense, it's something she's already done. I don't know if Limbaugh ever did that.