The Pluto binary planet definitely counts as a planet in my mind due to the complex geological structure even if the two individual bodies it's composed of wouldn't.
I also see no particular reason to keep the planet count low. Why institute arbitrary limitations to keep it below a dozen? If there are 36 planets there are 36 planets, if 300 there are 300.
Pluto has allies and they pushed a new standard with a fairly awful set of rules and lots of problems. Also this "new" planet they've found wouldn't meet those rules regardless of size.
The idea went down in flames and the brilliant engineer (who mankind owes a great deal for his contributions to space exploration) who was behind it died in 2006. This isn't really a news article so much as a "I bet you didn't know about" sort of thing.
The modern offshoot of this plan is just massive solar generators in space. One of which would supposedly supply a third of the global energy consumption.
"Corporations are people, they are owned by people"
Those are two different things. If a corporation is owned by two people and you view corporations as people then suddenly those two people are effectively considered three people, one of which has a corporations gross before tax revenues at its disposal. Those two people already have rights and are entitled to the same two, not three, votes sets of rights and NET AFTER TAX resources they take out of the corporation to voice their opinions.
" One also has to wonder the importance of being anonymous anyway."
Says the AC. The importance of anonymity is that without it there can be no absolute guarantee the speech will not be hampered or carry repercussions from the powerful. This includes repercussion should a body such as the supreme court.
The Constitution was written by laymen and therefore is in plain if outdated English. With only a few notable exceptions (the word "regulated" in the 2nd amendment which meant "ordered or well trained" at the time for instance) it means just what it sounds like it means. Can you think of cases where the supreme court has blatantly ruled in a manner that isn't consistent with the Constitution thereby committing high treason? I certainly can.
Free speech is not a favor or privilege and the government is not empowered to limit it or take it away. Nor is it right granted by the Constitution. It is a right reserved by the people when they granted revokable and limited authority to the government via the Constitution. Often people confuse the explicit reservation of certain rights to the people in the Constitution, a way of highlighting and making clear limits in the authority the people are granting government, with the Constitution giving people rights.
Agreed. What I do not agree with the idea that corporations have the right to free speech or that any individual has the right to more speech than another. Therefore no corporation (or paper entity) should be allowed to contribute to campaigns and no individual should be allowed to contribute more than another could.
Civil servants give up their rights when acting in an official capacity. They are given legal protections when acting in their official capacity, as if the office and not the individual were acting, the trade off is the rights of the office and not action apply when acting in that capacity and public offices carry no rights, only limited privileges as granted by the people via the Constitution. The people on the other hand don't need to be granted anything, they retain all rights and authority they didn't delegate in the Constitution including the right to take away any grant of authority they gave in the Constitution. That is what the people do when they nullify the law as jurors for instance.
In a rational world government officials who openly advocate blatant contempt of the Constitution would be charged by the Justice department with high treason. After all, they would have just publicly admitted to being guilty.
Correction, as RESERVED by the 10th and 9th Amendments. Unlike the branches of government the people do not derive their authority from the Constitution, the Constitution derives its authority from the people. That's why juries as the direct representatives of the people outrank the court/congress/etc and the people reserved their right to have a jury of their peers decide if they belong in a cage knowing that jury has the right to disregard what lesser lawmaking authorities feel about it.
The internet is effectively entirely composed of speech and free speech is protected under the first amendment. Your ISP isn't bound by the first amendment but the government is. So yes, you have the right to communicate using any and all mediums, including the internet.
"You are talking about something that has an inconsistent deliver method, is difficult to measure, is only used to treat symptoms, when there are more easily measured/delivered alternatives."
I'm sorry but your information is out of date. There are extremely consistent delivery methods, including vaporization in the same way that many medications for lung conditions are treated with extracts of known potency. Although dosing is a bit of a red herring given that you can exceed the dosage 500 fold without any significant risks of a serious problem.
"is difficult to measure"
In what way?
"is only used to treat symptoms, when there are more easily measured/delivered alternatives"
Which are ineffective for many patients, carry far greater risk of serious side effects, and in many cases don't work at all. There are no shortage of over the counter medications which are far more likely to cause serious side effects and/or death while only treating symptoms. This includes almost everything found in your typical medicine cabinet including the cough syrup, cold medicines, and pain relievers. The water you use alongside most of those medications is more likely to cause you harm than taking 5000% of your typical dose of Cannabis. One would expect that for any symptom for which it brings relief it would be the first choice solution since it is the lowest risk solution rather than the last resort of the desperate when none of the far more dangerous drugs work.
"Although for recreation it can grow in fairly diverse conditions, would be hard to control and tax"
You could say that of many of the plants you'll find amongst the landscaping along my residential street. Unlike cannabis, you could make a good argument for needing to control of them as they are quite toxic. I've yet to hear any particular reason we should be controlling or putting special taxes on Cannabis. The tax argument is used to bribe the ignorant in order to sway their stance on something which represents no public health risk and was only restricted in the first place because it competed financially with certain industries so they came up with a synonymous name the public wasn't familiar with and then spread mass propaganda campaign. Had the public known then that marijuana was nothing more than hemp we wouldn't have restrictions today.
"would probably end up getting mixed with other more dangerous things like it already is"
That is actually just a myth. All those more dangerous things are more expensive and therefore no dealer would waste them lacing a bag to get people more addicted. Generally the only thing you'll find people doing is adding water to increase weight. There is one particularly evil practice I know has occurred a couple times which was using crushed glass to make the plant look more sparkling and potent. In a completely white market I see no reason the drug or grocery store is more likely to do that with hemp than with lettuce. They already do add water to cheat you in many cases at the grocer.
"would be problematic testing to see if someone is currently under the influence when they operate heavy machinery and cause an accident"
I'm not sure if it really matters if they were under the influence, the issue would be that they caused an accident and either it was reasonable or not. But then I feel the same way about drunk driving. Who cares why you were swerving all over the road, you were driving recklessly and should be ticketed as such. If you were driving perfectly there is no reason to ticket you.
That said, while actually under the influence a simple blood test reveals the substance and quantity the same as any other. Many existing drug tests fail at this because they are designed to be as sensitive as possible to be sure to detect even the smallest trace in the system so it can be detected up to a month after usage. But a simple analysis of your blood can show the levels right now, which are certainly going to be dramatically different in someone currently under the influence vs someone who used the substance yesterday, let alone last week.
$400 is pretty typical full retail for high grade (generally indoor, named genetics, absolutely controlled and grown from clones with zero seed).
$450 is someone getting ripped off. $300 would be the normal price for a full OZ if someone likes you since $400 is no discount vs buying four full price $100 quarters.
"or worse, into wild and unproven claims of its medical benefits"
Tell it to any of the 7 kids who had between 7-36 seizures a day consistently which dropped to 0-4 a year from the first moment of treatment with CBD heavy extracts I provided in NM. Claims aren't wild and unproven, there is quite a bit of research coming out of California and other states. Enough research that many state legislatures have found it compelling enough to legalize the medicinal use.
We have an entire body subsystem that responds to compounds that naturally occur in only one plant in nature and synthesize many cannabinoids naturally in our own bodies. It would actually be highly improbable that the plant had no medicinal benefits.
Obviously, I do agree about the safety of the plant though. It should be completely unregulated under the FDA's own rules. Those rules exempt garlic pills and should exempt marijuana. Something causing euphoria is not a valid reason for regulation or outlawing it.
Should doctors prescribe it? It shouldn't require a prescription but last I checked doctors are free to recommend herbal remedies and foods off the shelf if they like. There are nuts who claim herbal remedies cure everything under the sun and there are also nuts who claim herbal remedies do absolutely nothing.... never mind that most prescription drugs came to exist as the result of isolating the compound in an herbal remedy that was believed to be behind it's effects. Doctors are not scientists, they do not have to wait for the science to come in before they start using something that is clearing helping people. If they did they still wouldn't be allowed to recommend asprin.
Which is fine. It creates US jobs and causes price inflation. By causing the parts to have to disassembled and reassembled in the US you've created additional overhead vs just manufacturing in the US. In the case of a mercedes that might make sense, for many things that cost difference will make it more economical just to manufacture in the US.
Either way you've increased the price at market for the good in question, which is inflation, which is what the dollar needs. People worry so much about out of control inflation, out of control inflation is a problem you can be sure but our currency (and the entire global fiat currency system) is designed with inflation as a central pillar to function. If the dollar isn't inflating enough or worse is actually deflating and increasing in value our entire economic system is breaking. The entire economy revolves around a currency that will be worth less tomorrow than today. Inflation means money is either in a state or risk (and therefore potentially gaining interest to cover the inflation) or is actively losing value to those who are given the new money. In our economy the new money is more or less created on demand and given out to the banks.
Currently, we are giving that money to banks with effectively no interest and they can loan it out at interest. Even being given free money to loan out, the banks aren't able to loan out enough of it to create inflation. The reason is pretty simple, most of the money being loaned out is being used to re-finance high interest loans. That doesn't dissolve debt on paper now it instead dissolves the pressure the interest carries. But new money isn't needed here the amount you owe essentially stays the same but your payments go down. Therefore this does not create inflation.
This gives us more money to spend on IPODs and other goods but since there isn't actually more money floating around the prices for these goods aren't going up. Those who couldn't afford to own property receive no benefit so they still can't afford to buy IPODs, those who could afford to own property could already afford IPODs so there really isn't any increased demand for them. So that group, the top 20% is gaining wealth because they don't have any need to spend it while the bottom 80% don't have more or better paying jobs. Donald Trumps answer is to make the IPODs (along with everything else we import) more expensive so that inflation is created without needing to actually increase demand. This resolves the problem by taking wealth from those spending money, the impact felt will be proportional the amount you spend relative to what you have now. This will put some people who have a small excess now have to spend everything they have and crunch the bottom 80% who spend everything they have paycheck to paycheck on goods and services now. Just like replacing the income tax with a flat sales tax like Ron Paul proposed, this has very little impact on those who have an excess of incoming wealth far greater than what they spend (vs invest) since the cost of goods and services they buy is insignificant relative to their income stream and they are mostly impacted by the amount of risk they have to assume to keep their reserves of already existing wealth growing.
Sanders is suggesting instead that we create inflation by increasing the cost of investing instead of goods and services, and therefore the cost of both maintaining and growing existing wealth which only impacts those with an excess. He then wants to spend the money on social programs which further decrease the cost to live. This increases the number of people who have an excess and reduces pressure on the bottom 80%. The more excess income/wealth you have relative expenses the more impact this has on you inversely relative to Trumps plan. There is a group of upper middle class where the differences balance out, you might pay more taxes but costs offset by the social programs will cover those taxes.
Hillary current refuses to acknowledge there is any problem to fix. So your two choices are between the wealthiest people having less valuable dollars and poor people having the same number of dollars but facing higher prices or to stick your head in the sand because gas is cheap.
Maybe they are thinking about everyone elses kids. Maybe their kids have medical issues. Despite propaganda to the contrary there are actually many medical conditions whole marijuana successfully treats that isolated compounds within the plant do not successfully treat. Our current system of evaluating medicines does not really work well for finding treatments that depend on multiple substances which may have minimal or no pharmacological effect in isolation but become pharmacologically active in combination with one or more other substances.
There are hundreds of cannabinoids in whole cannabis and the endocannabinoid system responds to them in the human body. The potential interactions that lead to these benefits will not be easily chased down in our lifetimes especially with government refusal to cooperate with studies which don't assume negative effects. Since it's fair to say the vast majority of adults walking around today smoked marijuana at some point as kids the risk is pretty minimal and outweighed by any medical benefit.
Everyone opposed will be quick to point out any supposed or potential known side effects of Cannabis use like potential risks for people with severe heart conditions, schizophrenics, or the relatively low addition potential. What they won't do is give those side effects perspective and point out they pale in comparison with the side effects of Tylenol, Aspirin, Ibuprofen, and even many substances on the herbal supplement isle of the drug store.
It doesn't really matter now that we know that letting your kid participate in marijuana studies is harmless.
But that is a tax on imports. The tech companies are all US based or have a US presence, Trump is proposing to impose a tax penalty on their revenues.
If they manufacture products outside the US they'd get hit with this penalty. No need to actually catch individual items being imported. They can't afford to not be able to do business in the US so while they can threaten to leave it would ultimately fail and the US has far reaching trade agreements to assure we can collect those taxes wherever they are stashed.
Of course not, nor would Hillary or Bernie do anything they are saying right now. As soon as candidates become party nominees they'll all flip-flop to platforms that are much more soft.
They are all doing the same thing. Saying whatever will get them elected.
Unfortunately, what none of them are even willing to say is that they will put a stop to domestic spying and the war on terror.
"The most popular candidate in the Republican party said he would impose a 35% business tax on American businesses manufacturing outside of the United States."
Okay.
"How Trump would force Apple's supply chain, which relies heavily on a vast network of suppliers and large factories throughout Asia, to be brought stateside remains unknown."
Seriously, did you not read that first quote? Obviously, that is how he plans to do it.
"If Trump (or anyone) thinks this is a good idea, why start or stop with Apple? "
Again, did you fail to read that first quote. Apple is an obviously an example, he proposed a tax (the quote above) that would give a financial push to all US based companies to manufacture in the US.
Whether you think it's a good idea or a bad one there is no reason to be deliberately obtuse. Despite us having almost non-existent inflation, arguably being in danger of deflation even with the fed rate at practically nothing (banks can get new money for free, all you can eat inflation buffet) the economy is crashing in response to free falling oil prices and more importantly problems in the Chinese economy. Not to mention widespread IP threat and industrial espionage on the part of the Chinese. It IS a valid strategy, that would force inflation (which our currency depends on), would do in a mostly luxury area (tech) and create jobs in the US providing a vehicle for some of that money to move out of the banks and into the general population.
The problems are that it is isolationist, may hurt our relations with China, and that the jobs will be mostly low paid so it will actually further hollow out the middle class. Some would argue that businesses would leave. That isn't really a valid problem, being blocked from trade in the US in retaliation for such a move would bankrupt any such technology instantly.
"but open source will have a bad name inside the company"
Good? If they are producing closed source output then I see nothing wrong with cutting themselves off from the development output of the open community and speeding their rapid crash and burn while some project that is actually open obsoletes them.
"Would I want a telemetry service running on my linux box? Hell, no! But I'm also not the target market for this distro."
You actually think enterprise environments are LESS concerned about their data leaking to unauthorized third parties? Hardly. In fact, depending on what data leaks through such a service it could even be a PCI compliance violation, illegal and/or open them to liability.
"It's touted by Intel as a feature of the distro, after all, so they obviously think some people will find it useful."
If you think touting something as a feature means that the one making claim actually believes it to be any such thing you are crazy. This is like a recent smart tv vendor, they installed a backdoor enabling the camera and microphone and monitoring your viewing usage, allegedly for ad content. They called it something like "media enhancement" or similar in the menu entries and enabled it by default. Enhancement my ass, they only put an entry in so they could claim it was always easy to disable if discovered and they named that entry to something that people weren't likely to turn off.
Generally agreed. One might say this is the EXTREME version of the release early and release often development model.
It has it's ups and downs and a similar development model is spreading everywhere as devops take over and developers are being given the keys to the castle. Unfortunately, in the past young an enthusiastic developers have been restrained both by more experienced programmers and experienced admins. When a young but talented programmer ignores a more experienced programmer the admins could be counted on to refuse to deploy anything that hadn't survived a test of time and good practices. The amazing capabilities offered by devops simplifies many aspects of administration to the point where developers can do it which gives people the insane idea they SHOULD do it.
I can see what results come from these models, innovative ideas realized that might not have been otherwise, but unstable and unmanageable implementations. The wheel keeps turning. When stability and consistency becomes the prized and rare commodity again those stable and consiste implementations will use better development practices but use them to implement the things that did turn out to be good ideas in the times of chaos ahead. Unfortunately, at my age that means chaos until I'm close to retirement.
At least the wheel has turned with hardware performance progression slowing and optimization and performance coming back. Next up, every layer in the stack trace that dumps for any error in your app represents at least 4 extra instructions every time that code is used * calls per day * nodes it is used on. Not to mention all that black boxing meaning you don't know how to efficiently utilize the black box and most definitely aren't. Your thousand node cluster could probably be a 200 node cluster and your ridiculously abstracted design may well avoid re-inventing the wheel but also means nobody has actually known your codebase, for real, for at least 5 years since the guy who actually wrote it and kept all those details in the back of his head. Everything carries a tradeoff, sooner or later whatever piece "is insignificant" relative to benefits will start to add up.
I think they keep it reasonable pretty much everywhere so that either the school or a bus station is within walking distance. Either way, unless it's showing a child where the bus stop/school is the first time around it was unusual to encounter parents in the process.
I also didn't exactly hang out with my parents after school either. I certainly roamed about by myself or with friends much further than I ever had to walk to any school or bus stop. Basically unless there was something going on (family outing/event or whatever) I was free to come and go and just call if I wasn't going to be home by dinner or at bed time.
For every stranger representing any kind of danger to your child there are probably tens of thousands who will go out of their way to help one get back to their parents or school. Almost all kidnappings are by a non-custodial parent. By and large people actually aren't out to hurt your children or other people for that matter.
My wife grew up in the city and is very sensitized to guns. Quite different from my rural upbringing where everyone had guns, high powered improvised explosives would be used to blow out stumps, and kids would be taken out of school at times for hunting season, etc. She was surprised I was so supportive of open carry provisions and that I was annoyed by the large list of places that don't serve alcohol that prohibit firearms on premise. She listed Chuck-e-cheese as an example of a place that surely you wouldn't want people to be allowed to have a gun. I pointed out to her that a Chuck-e-cheese filled with openly armed protective parents is about the safest place I could possibly imagine bringing my child. If one were interested in harming children that is about the most dangerous place you could possibly go and if someone is simply insane and lacks that kind of reasoning ability armed parents can stop them a lot faster than unarmed parents.
Slashdot Mirror
The Pluto binary planet definitely counts as a planet in my mind due to the complex geological structure even if the two individual bodies it's composed of wouldn't.
I also see no particular reason to keep the planet count low. Why institute arbitrary limitations to keep it below a dozen? If there are 36 planets there are 36 planets, if 300 there are 300.
Why would Slashdot need you to turn off the ad-blocker when it gives you that little check box on the front page to turn off ads yourself?
Pluto has allies and they pushed a new standard with a fairly awful set of rules and lots of problems. Also this "new" planet they've found wouldn't meet those rules regardless of size.
No friend of Plutonians would fund this scum.
The idea went down in flames and the brilliant engineer (who mankind owes a great deal for his contributions to space exploration) who was behind it died in 2006. This isn't really a news article so much as a "I bet you didn't know about" sort of thing.
The modern offshoot of this plan is just massive solar generators in space. One of which would supposedly supply a third of the global energy consumption.
"Corporations are people, they are owned by people"
Those are two different things. If a corporation is owned by two people and you view corporations as people then suddenly those two people are effectively considered three people, one of which has a corporations gross before tax revenues at its disposal. Those two people already have rights and are entitled to the same two, not three, votes sets of rights and NET AFTER TAX resources they take out of the corporation to voice their opinions.
" One also has to wonder the importance of being anonymous anyway."
Says the AC. The importance of anonymity is that without it there can be no absolute guarantee the speech will not be hampered or carry repercussions from the powerful. This includes repercussion should a body such as the supreme court.
The Constitution was written by laymen and therefore is in plain if outdated English. With only a few notable exceptions (the word "regulated" in the 2nd amendment which meant "ordered or well trained" at the time for instance) it means just what it sounds like it means. Can you think of cases where the supreme court has blatantly ruled in a manner that isn't consistent with the Constitution thereby committing high treason? I certainly can.
Free speech is not a favor or privilege and the government is not empowered to limit it or take it away. Nor is it right granted by the Constitution. It is a right reserved by the people when they granted revokable and limited authority to the government via the Constitution. Often people confuse the explicit reservation of certain rights to the people in the Constitution, a way of highlighting and making clear limits in the authority the people are granting government, with the Constitution giving people rights.
Agreed. What I do not agree with the idea that corporations have the right to free speech or that any individual has the right to more speech than another. Therefore no corporation (or paper entity) should be allowed to contribute to campaigns and no individual should be allowed to contribute more than another could.
Civil servants give up their rights when acting in an official capacity. They are given legal protections when acting in their official capacity, as if the office and not the individual were acting, the trade off is the rights of the office and not action apply when acting in that capacity and public offices carry no rights, only limited privileges as granted by the people via the Constitution. The people on the other hand don't need to be granted anything, they retain all rights and authority they didn't delegate in the Constitution including the right to take away any grant of authority they gave in the Constitution. That is what the people do when they nullify the law as jurors for instance.
In a rational world government officials who openly advocate blatant contempt of the Constitution would be charged by the Justice department with high treason. After all, they would have just publicly admitted to being guilty.
Correction, as RESERVED by the 10th and 9th Amendments. Unlike the branches of government the people do not derive their authority from the Constitution, the Constitution derives its authority from the people. That's why juries as the direct representatives of the people outrank the court/congress/etc and the people reserved their right to have a jury of their peers decide if they belong in a cage knowing that jury has the right to disregard what lesser lawmaking authorities feel about it.
The internet is effectively entirely composed of speech and free speech is protected under the first amendment. Your ISP isn't bound by the first amendment but the government is. So yes, you have the right to communicate using any and all mediums, including the internet.
"You are talking about something that has an inconsistent deliver method, is difficult to measure, is only used to treat symptoms, when there are more easily measured/delivered alternatives."
I'm sorry but your information is out of date. There are extremely consistent delivery methods, including vaporization in the same way that many medications for lung conditions are treated with extracts of known potency. Although dosing is a bit of a red herring given that you can exceed the dosage 500 fold without any significant risks of a serious problem.
"is difficult to measure"
In what way?
"is only used to treat symptoms, when there are more easily measured/delivered alternatives"
Which are ineffective for many patients, carry far greater risk of serious side effects, and in many cases don't work at all. There are no shortage of over the counter medications which are far more likely to cause serious side effects and/or death while only treating symptoms. This includes almost everything found in your typical medicine cabinet including the cough syrup, cold medicines, and pain relievers. The water you use alongside most of those medications is more likely to cause you harm than taking 5000% of your typical dose of Cannabis. One would expect that for any symptom for which it brings relief it would be the first choice solution since it is the lowest risk solution rather than the last resort of the desperate when none of the far more dangerous drugs work.
"Although for recreation it can grow in fairly diverse conditions, would be hard to control and tax"
You could say that of many of the plants you'll find amongst the landscaping along my residential street. Unlike cannabis, you could make a good argument for needing to control of them as they are quite toxic. I've yet to hear any particular reason we should be controlling or putting special taxes on Cannabis. The tax argument is used to bribe the ignorant in order to sway their stance on something which represents no public health risk and was only restricted in the first place because it competed financially with certain industries so they came up with a synonymous name the public wasn't familiar with and then spread mass propaganda campaign. Had the public known then that marijuana was nothing more than hemp we wouldn't have restrictions today.
"would probably end up getting mixed with other more dangerous things like it already is"
That is actually just a myth. All those more dangerous things are more expensive and therefore no dealer would waste them lacing a bag to get people more addicted. Generally the only thing you'll find people doing is adding water to increase weight. There is one particularly evil practice I know has occurred a couple times which was using crushed glass to make the plant look more sparkling and potent. In a completely white market I see no reason the drug or grocery store is more likely to do that with hemp than with lettuce. They already do add water to cheat you in many cases at the grocer.
"would be problematic testing to see if someone is currently under the influence when they operate heavy machinery and cause an accident"
I'm not sure if it really matters if they were under the influence, the issue would be that they caused an accident and either it was reasonable or not. But then I feel the same way about drunk driving. Who cares why you were swerving all over the road, you were driving recklessly and should be ticketed as such. If you were driving perfectly there is no reason to ticket you.
That said, while actually under the influence a simple blood test reveals the substance and quantity the same as any other. Many existing drug tests fail at this because they are designed to be as sensitive as possible to be sure to detect even the smallest trace in the system so it can be detected up to a month after usage. But a simple analysis of your blood can show the levels right now, which are certainly going to be dramatically different in someone currently under the influence vs someone who used the substance yesterday, let alone last week.
$400 is pretty typical full retail for high grade (generally indoor, named genetics, absolutely controlled and grown from clones with zero seed).
$450 is someone getting ripped off. $300 would be the normal price for a full OZ if someone likes you since $400 is no discount vs buying four full price $100 quarters.
"or worse, into wild and unproven claims of its medical benefits"
Tell it to any of the 7 kids who had between 7-36 seizures a day consistently which dropped to 0-4 a year from the first moment of treatment with CBD heavy extracts I provided in NM. Claims aren't wild and unproven, there is quite a bit of research coming out of California and other states. Enough research that many state legislatures have found it compelling enough to legalize the medicinal use.
We have an entire body subsystem that responds to compounds that naturally occur in only one plant in nature and synthesize many cannabinoids naturally in our own bodies. It would actually be highly improbable that the plant had no medicinal benefits.
Obviously, I do agree about the safety of the plant though. It should be completely unregulated under the FDA's own rules. Those rules exempt garlic pills and should exempt marijuana. Something causing euphoria is not a valid reason for regulation or outlawing it.
Should doctors prescribe it? It shouldn't require a prescription but last I checked doctors are free to recommend herbal remedies and foods off the shelf if they like. There are nuts who claim herbal remedies cure everything under the sun and there are also nuts who claim herbal remedies do absolutely nothing.... never mind that most prescription drugs came to exist as the result of isolating the compound in an herbal remedy that was believed to be behind it's effects. Doctors are not scientists, they do not have to wait for the science to come in before they start using something that is clearing helping people. If they did they still wouldn't be allowed to recommend asprin.
Which is fine. It creates US jobs and causes price inflation. By causing the parts to have to disassembled and reassembled in the US you've created additional overhead vs just manufacturing in the US. In the case of a mercedes that might make sense, for many things that cost difference will make it more economical just to manufacture in the US.
Either way you've increased the price at market for the good in question, which is inflation, which is what the dollar needs. People worry so much about out of control inflation, out of control inflation is a problem you can be sure but our currency (and the entire global fiat currency system) is designed with inflation as a central pillar to function. If the dollar isn't inflating enough or worse is actually deflating and increasing in value our entire economic system is breaking. The entire economy revolves around a currency that will be worth less tomorrow than today. Inflation means money is either in a state or risk (and therefore potentially gaining interest to cover the inflation) or is actively losing value to those who are given the new money. In our economy the new money is more or less created on demand and given out to the banks.
Currently, we are giving that money to banks with effectively no interest and they can loan it out at interest. Even being given free money to loan out, the banks aren't able to loan out enough of it to create inflation. The reason is pretty simple, most of the money being loaned out is being used to re-finance high interest loans. That doesn't dissolve debt on paper now it instead dissolves the pressure the interest carries. But new money isn't needed here the amount you owe essentially stays the same but your payments go down. Therefore this does not create inflation.
This gives us more money to spend on IPODs and other goods but since there isn't actually more money floating around the prices for these goods aren't going up. Those who couldn't afford to own property receive no benefit so they still can't afford to buy IPODs, those who could afford to own property could already afford IPODs so there really isn't any increased demand for them. So that group, the top 20% is gaining wealth because they don't have any need to spend it while the bottom 80% don't have more or better paying jobs. Donald Trumps answer is to make the IPODs (along with everything else we import) more expensive so that inflation is created without needing to actually increase demand. This resolves the problem by taking wealth from those spending money, the impact felt will be proportional the amount you spend relative to what you have now. This will put some people who have a small excess now have to spend everything they have and crunch the bottom 80% who spend everything they have paycheck to paycheck on goods and services now. Just like replacing the income tax with a flat sales tax like Ron Paul proposed, this has very little impact on those who have an excess of incoming wealth far greater than what they spend (vs invest) since the cost of goods and services they buy is insignificant relative to their income stream and they are mostly impacted by the amount of risk they have to assume to keep their reserves of already existing wealth growing.
Sanders is suggesting instead that we create inflation by increasing the cost of investing instead of goods and services, and therefore the cost of both maintaining and growing existing wealth which only impacts those with an excess. He then wants to spend the money on social programs which further decrease the cost to live. This increases the number of people who have an excess and reduces pressure on the bottom 80%. The more excess income/wealth you have relative expenses the more impact this has on you inversely relative to Trumps plan. There is a group of upper middle class where the differences balance out, you might pay more taxes but costs offset by the social programs will cover those taxes.
Hillary current refuses to acknowledge there is any problem to fix. So your two choices are between the wealthiest people having less valuable dollars and poor people having the same number of dollars but facing higher prices or to stick your head in the sand because gas is cheap.
Maybe they are thinking about everyone elses kids. Maybe their kids have medical issues. Despite propaganda to the contrary there are actually many medical conditions whole marijuana successfully treats that isolated compounds within the plant do not successfully treat. Our current system of evaluating medicines does not really work well for finding treatments that depend on multiple substances which may have minimal or no pharmacological effect in isolation but become pharmacologically active in combination with one or more other substances.
There are hundreds of cannabinoids in whole cannabis and the endocannabinoid system responds to them in the human body. The potential interactions that lead to these benefits will not be easily chased down in our lifetimes especially with government refusal to cooperate with studies which don't assume negative effects. Since it's fair to say the vast majority of adults walking around today smoked marijuana at some point as kids the risk is pretty minimal and outweighed by any medical benefit.
Everyone opposed will be quick to point out any supposed or potential known side effects of Cannabis use like potential risks for people with severe heart conditions, schizophrenics, or the relatively low addition potential. What they won't do is give those side effects perspective and point out they pale in comparison with the side effects of Tylenol, Aspirin, Ibuprofen, and even many substances on the herbal supplement isle of the drug store.
It doesn't really matter now that we know that letting your kid participate in marijuana studies is harmless.
But that is a tax on imports. The tech companies are all US based or have a US presence, Trump is proposing to impose a tax penalty on their revenues.
If they manufacture products outside the US they'd get hit with this penalty. No need to actually catch individual items being imported. They can't afford to not be able to do business in the US so while they can threaten to leave it would ultimately fail and the US has far reaching trade agreements to assure we can collect those taxes wherever they are stashed.
Of course not, nor would Hillary or Bernie do anything they are saying right now. As soon as candidates become party nominees they'll all flip-flop to platforms that are much more soft.
They are all doing the same thing. Saying whatever will get them elected.
Unfortunately, what none of them are even willing to say is that they will put a stop to domestic spying and the war on terror.
The summary at least is a little poorly thought.
"The most popular candidate in the Republican party said he would impose a 35% business tax on American businesses manufacturing outside of the United States."
Okay.
"How Trump would force Apple's supply chain, which relies heavily on a vast network of suppliers and large factories throughout Asia, to be brought stateside remains unknown."
Seriously, did you not read that first quote? Obviously, that is how he plans to do it.
"If Trump (or anyone) thinks this is a good idea, why start or stop with Apple? "
Again, did you fail to read that first quote. Apple is an obviously an example, he proposed a tax (the quote above) that would give a financial push to all US based companies to manufacture in the US.
Whether you think it's a good idea or a bad one there is no reason to be deliberately obtuse. Despite us having almost non-existent inflation, arguably being in danger of deflation even with the fed rate at practically nothing (banks can get new money for free, all you can eat inflation buffet) the economy is crashing in response to free falling oil prices and more importantly problems in the Chinese economy. Not to mention widespread IP threat and industrial espionage on the part of the Chinese. It IS a valid strategy, that would force inflation (which our currency depends on), would do in a mostly luxury area (tech) and create jobs in the US providing a vehicle for some of that money to move out of the banks and into the general population.
The problems are that it is isolationist, may hurt our relations with China, and that the jobs will be mostly low paid so it will actually further hollow out the middle class. Some would argue that businesses would leave. That isn't really a valid problem, being blocked from trade in the US in retaliation for such a move would bankrupt any such technology instantly.
"but open source will have a bad name inside the company"
Good? If they are producing closed source output then I see nothing wrong with cutting themselves off from the development output of the open community and speeding their rapid crash and burn while some project that is actually open obsoletes them.
for copyright. Therefore the license and their requirements aren't relevant.
"Would I want a telemetry service running on my linux box? Hell, no! But I'm also not the target market for this distro."
You actually think enterprise environments are LESS concerned about their data leaking to unauthorized third parties? Hardly. In fact, depending on what data leaks through such a service it could even be a PCI compliance violation, illegal and/or open them to liability.
"It's touted by Intel as a feature of the distro, after all, so they obviously think some people will find it useful."
If you think touting something as a feature means that the one making claim actually believes it to be any such thing you are crazy. This is like a recent smart tv vendor, they installed a backdoor enabling the camera and microphone and monitoring your viewing usage, allegedly for ad content. They called it something like "media enhancement" or similar in the menu entries and enabled it by default. Enhancement my ass, they only put an entry in so they could claim it was always easy to disable if discovered and they named that entry to something that people weren't likely to turn off.
Generally agreed. One might say this is the EXTREME version of the release early and release often development model.
It has it's ups and downs and a similar development model is spreading everywhere as devops take over and developers are being given the keys to the castle. Unfortunately, in the past young an enthusiastic developers have been restrained both by more experienced programmers and experienced admins. When a young but talented programmer ignores a more experienced programmer the admins could be counted on to refuse to deploy anything that hadn't survived a test of time and good practices. The amazing capabilities offered by devops simplifies many aspects of administration to the point where developers can do it which gives people the insane idea they SHOULD do it.
I can see what results come from these models, innovative ideas realized that might not have been otherwise, but unstable and unmanageable implementations. The wheel keeps turning. When stability and consistency becomes the prized and rare commodity again those stable and consiste implementations will use better development practices but use them to implement the things that did turn out to be good ideas in the times of chaos ahead. Unfortunately, at my age that means chaos until I'm close to retirement.
At least the wheel has turned with hardware performance progression slowing and optimization and performance coming back. Next up, every layer in the stack trace that dumps for any error in your app represents at least 4 extra instructions every time that code is used * calls per day * nodes it is used on. Not to mention all that black boxing meaning you don't know how to efficiently utilize the black box and most definitely aren't. Your thousand node cluster could probably be a 200 node cluster and your ridiculously abstracted design may well avoid re-inventing the wheel but also means nobody has actually known your codebase, for real, for at least 5 years since the guy who actually wrote it and kept all those details in the back of his head. Everything carries a tradeoff, sooner or later whatever piece "is insignificant" relative to benefits will start to add up.
Note how nobody has said how.
I think they keep it reasonable pretty much everywhere so that either the school or a bus station is within walking distance. Either way, unless it's showing a child where the bus stop/school is the first time around it was unusual to encounter parents in the process.
I also didn't exactly hang out with my parents after school either. I certainly roamed about by myself or with friends much further than I ever had to walk to any school or bus stop. Basically unless there was something going on (family outing/event or whatever) I was free to come and go and just call if I wasn't going to be home by dinner or at bed time.
For every stranger representing any kind of danger to your child there are probably tens of thousands who will go out of their way to help one get back to their parents or school. Almost all kidnappings are by a non-custodial parent. By and large people actually aren't out to hurt your children or other people for that matter.
My wife grew up in the city and is very sensitized to guns. Quite different from my rural upbringing where everyone had guns, high powered improvised explosives would be used to blow out stumps, and kids would be taken out of school at times for hunting season, etc. She was surprised I was so supportive of open carry provisions and that I was annoyed by the large list of places that don't serve alcohol that prohibit firearms on premise. She listed Chuck-e-cheese as an example of a place that surely you wouldn't want people to be allowed to have a gun. I pointed out to her that a Chuck-e-cheese filled with openly armed protective parents is about the safest place I could possibly imagine bringing my child. If one were interested in harming children that is about the most dangerous place you could possibly go and if someone is simply insane and lacks that kind of reasoning ability armed parents can stop them a lot faster than unarmed parents.