Yes, they are. But the purpose of a corporation is to shield its owners from CIVIL and regulatory litigation. The FCC can relatively easily prove when its regulations are violated, but it takes a lot more to prove criminal intent. There almost never is any provable criminal intent behind a regulatory violation. An example might be accounting irregularities to hide embezzlement-- those would result in criminal charges against individuals.
So, when Obama and the Dems controlled everything, when Clinton and the Dems controlled everything, and neither of them fixed the problem you describe as being "Reagan fired PATCO" (which has little or nothing to do with the code and systems today, being 30+ years ago), you still chose to blame something that can only be described as tangential to the current problem.
Indeed, Clinton had an opportunity to help loosen the union restrictions in Taft-Hartley (passed with veto override by both parties in 1947 and subsequently used by the President who vetoed it), but he did not do so. And, of course, neither has Obama as you stated. I guess Obama needs a third term to have time to get things like this done.
As far as safety goes, the private airlines are heavily regulated. And maintenance is not under the purview of the air traffic controllers, so this is a red herring and "shedding parts" is mere hyperbole in any case.
If the systems were allegedly "dinosaurs" in the 1980s, I would think they'd be causing "mid-airs" on a regular basis right now. That they are not tells me that the systems have been upgraded.
Reagan went into office SUPPORTING PATCO. They actually endorsed him over Jimmy Carter, who had ignored them. But they decided to test Reagan after only 7 months in office but illegally striking per Federal law. They certainly had concerns, but striking is illegal. These are the realities. There are now two organizations representing controllers, so they are by no means unrepresented.
The problem is that the article is stupid and uses a worst-case scenario concocted by one researcher and rubber-stamped by his favorite colleagues. I don't care if it's Hansen, we need to see someone else come up with the same results-- not a bunch of alarming articles that read like supermarket tabloids.
"al gore rides a private jet, therefore we can ignore the evidence of climate change"
this is their actual thought process. "al gore is a hypocrite. therefore climate change isn't real"
That's a reasonable conclusion, but one would think that if one of the most visible alarmists for climate change engages in contradictory behavior, that might mean that they don't actually believe in what they're saying. I don't think that's the case, but that's what a lot of people think. If you just call skeptics "idiots", you're making a similar mistake in assuming that they're just idiots whose opinions don't matter.
This is NOT insightful. The way it will work is this:
Today: ticket is $250 for everyone.
With weigh-in: Under 150 lbs $250, 150-200 $300, 200+ $350
PROFIT!
Not to mention that this is discriminatory against men and tall people, who are going to weight more than women or shorter people through no fault of their own.
Some people are disabled through no fault of their own, and we have to provide facilities to accommodate them. It costs more to install ramps, handles, special sinks and toilets, etc.
I don't get your point. For one, thanks to people who fought for our rights, we're allowed to possess weapons that are a lot more formidable than a revolver. The second point is that the only thing that keeps us from having any of those weapons would be a law-- and that kind of proves the point, that allowing citizens those weapons keeps the government honest, while banning them protects tyranny. FWIW, only the nukes are actually illegal-- and frankly, such weapons are mere tools of destruction and not useful for the purpose.
Lincoln used to write harsh letters to people who deserved it-- like his sluggish generals-- then place them in his desk for a day before sending them. He almost never sent them.
I kinda feel that people who owe their livelihood to the people do have to justify it. If you're going to expect citizens to pay for a welfare state, they'll have to follow the rules. If they don't want to, they can take care of themselves like the rest of us have the liberty to do.
FWIW, everything you listed is what PCI DSS requires except having separate machines (you can have just one machine as long as it doesn't serve two different scopes).
Sucrose and fructose are not poisons... that's the thing. And I hate to be the slippery slope guy, but if you let the government ban stuff because they help people get fat when abused, then anything can be banned. You won't be able to buy cookies, because you might eat them all in one sitting and get fat. You can't buy potato chips, because you could eat them all and get fat. It's just common sense. You're basically creating a temperance movement for high-calorie foods, where one bite is too many.
Slashdot Mirror
4si? They make your lights dim when they print. I think they draw 500W just sitting idle.
Yes, they are. But the purpose of a corporation is to shield its owners from CIVIL and regulatory litigation. The FCC can relatively easily prove when its regulations are violated, but it takes a lot more to prove criminal intent. There almost never is any provable criminal intent behind a regulatory violation. An example might be accounting irregularities to hide embezzlement-- those would result in criminal charges against individuals.
I think you meant "definitely" there, but "defiantly" puts an interesting spin on it.
But has Netcraft confirmed it?
Indeed, Clinton had an opportunity to help loosen the union restrictions in Taft-Hartley (passed with veto override by both parties in 1947 and subsequently used by the President who vetoed it), but he did not do so. And, of course, neither has Obama as you stated. I guess Obama needs a third term to have time to get things like this done.
As far as safety goes, the private airlines are heavily regulated. And maintenance is not under the purview of the air traffic controllers, so this is a red herring and "shedding parts" is mere hyperbole in any case.
If the systems were allegedly "dinosaurs" in the 1980s, I would think they'd be causing "mid-airs" on a regular basis right now. That they are not tells me that the systems have been upgraded.
Reagan went into office SUPPORTING PATCO. They actually endorsed him over Jimmy Carter, who had ignored them. But they decided to test Reagan after only 7 months in office but illegally striking per Federal law. They certainly had concerns, but striking is illegal. These are the realities. There are now two organizations representing controllers, so they are by no means unrepresented.
Excuse me-- did you just call China libertarian?
MY HEAD ASPLODE
That's why we have laws (in most areas) against serving intoxicated people-- whether they are driving or not.
Alcohol is already taxed out the wazoo. Liquor licenses are a tax. Business licenses are a tax.
Do we really need to put layered taxes on everything?
The best you can do is search. Good luck:
http://www.copyright.gov/recor...
No. As the GP said, the window for renewing those lapsed copyrights expired in 1983.
And nearly every Disney animated feature.
The problem is that the article is stupid and uses a worst-case scenario concocted by one researcher and rubber-stamped by his favorite colleagues. I don't care if it's Hansen, we need to see someone else come up with the same results-- not a bunch of alarming articles that read like supermarket tabloids.
That's a reasonable conclusion, but one would think that if one of the most visible alarmists for climate change engages in contradictory behavior, that might mean that they don't actually believe in what they're saying. I don't think that's the case, but that's what a lot of people think. If you just call skeptics "idiots", you're making a similar mistake in assuming that they're just idiots whose opinions don't matter.
Virtual +1 for "hamplanets".
This is NOT insightful. The way it will work is this:
Today: ticket is $250 for everyone.
With weigh-in: Under 150 lbs $250, 150-200 $300, 200+ $350
PROFIT!
Not to mention that this is discriminatory against men and tall people, who are going to weight more than women or shorter people through no fault of their own.
Some people are disabled through no fault of their own, and we have to provide facilities to accommodate them. It costs more to install ramps, handles, special sinks and toilets, etc.
I don't get your point. For one, thanks to people who fought for our rights, we're allowed to possess weapons that are a lot more formidable than a revolver. The second point is that the only thing that keeps us from having any of those weapons would be a law-- and that kind of proves the point, that allowing citizens those weapons keeps the government honest, while banning them protects tyranny. FWIW, only the nukes are actually illegal-- and frankly, such weapons are mere tools of destruction and not useful for the purpose.
Do you have another argument other than your appeal to popularity?
It certainly would have been easier for her to use the federal email servers where the admins have already implemented encryption for her.
Lincoln used to write harsh letters to people who deserved it-- like his sluggish generals-- then place them in his desk for a day before sending them. He almost never sent them.
There are safes secure enough that they can't be breached but by a select few experts, unless you're OK with destroying the contents.
You can have access to a safe... with a warrant. You don't get to demand the combination. You have to break in.
His idea includes NOT taxing people who are not resident, AND not paying them any dividend. So that would be changed.
I kinda feel that people who owe their livelihood to the people do have to justify it. If you're going to expect citizens to pay for a welfare state, they'll have to follow the rules. If they don't want to, they can take care of themselves like the rest of us have the liberty to do.
FWIW, everything you listed is what PCI DSS requires except having separate machines (you can have just one machine as long as it doesn't serve two different scopes).
Sucrose and fructose are not poisons... that's the thing. And I hate to be the slippery slope guy, but if you let the government ban stuff because they help people get fat when abused, then anything can be banned. You won't be able to buy cookies, because you might eat them all in one sitting and get fat. You can't buy potato chips, because you could eat them all and get fat. It's just common sense. You're basically creating a temperance movement for high-calorie foods, where one bite is too many.