If you have anything you need to send to the USDA where you will benefit if they don't respond within a certain time period.... sounds like we've found your 4-week window to send it to them....
If you are a marginal worker (in economic terms), like the young, inexperienced, or the low-skilled poor laborer, etc... you must make the case to an employer that you are worth more than all the costs government forces on them, including potential firing costs, plus your actual wage before they will be willing to hire you.
Policies like this hurt those who need a job the most.
Why do you think young inexperienced workers in some European countries have rioted recently? Hint, it's not because they are finding it easy to get a job...
First you have to convince them to hire someone for a job period before you can proceed to competing for that job.
Increasing the cost of hiring someone mostly hurts people who are "marginal" (in economic terms) in their ability to get a job. The young, the low-skilled, the poor, etc...
So in Finland, if you want a full-time job with benefits, you have to convince an employer that you are worth paying for 30 days a year when you aren't even working? Or take the equivalent in a lower salary? No legal option for just getting paid for the work you're doing for an employer?
Why then are they making voting machines less secure than ATMs?
You clearly don't understand enough about ATMs if you think they are more secure than voting machines.
Most ATMs are just barely secure enough to keep the cash from walking away as long as someone can keep a physical eye on the machine (something somewhat inhibited for voting machines by private voting requirements). ATMs generally do a decent job of recording and reporting transactions to a remote server so that when money invariably is stolen (physically or electronically) it can eventually be taken from the correct legally accountable bank account.
A variety of ATMs suffer from default passwords that aren't changed, physical cabinet keys that aren't unique, eavesdropping attacks in the form of card skimmers and cameras, unencrypted transmissions, insecure operating systems, administrative backdoors, etc...
ATMs and voting machines suffer from what are essentially illusions of security that rely on no one smart enough to bypass them having the real desire and resources to do so. When voting machines determine how real power in large amounts is distributed (say, in national elections), they can't hope to stand up to what's at stake unless they are simple enough to be essentially transparent in function to the public.
Rural/Metro in AZ is an actual private fire department (as opposed to the city government department in the article). Their policy in situations like this is to put out the fire and then bill the non-subscribing owner for the cost of services.
Private fire companies in cities in the early days of the U.S. typically had a policy of putting out fires for poor people and non-subscribers so that they wouldn't threaten their paying customers.
In any case, this event is a failure of County government and the folks in the County who don't organize their own fire department. It has nothing to do with private fire departments.
Get back to us with your expected lifespan for the building, then we'll look for LA's.
The expected lifespan of the building we built was 50+ years. It's a purpose-build modern public school with all the amenities like commercial kitchen, science labs, art labs, full size basketball gym, sports fields, playgrounds, common area, theater, music and language rooms, administration office space, parking lots, teacher prep rooms, library 3x the size of any other in the community, special education facilities, student gardens, sprinklers, internal steel fire and emergency doors, commercial wire plant, elevator, etc...
It's not like $9 million doesn't get you a lot, even today.... these guys spent almost $140K/student? There is no measurement by which that is a "reasonable" amount...
I was the Board Chair and was directly involved two years ago in building a very nice public school facility, custom designed, for 650 students. It cost $7.5 million to build. Factor in different locational-related costs and that'd be $9 million in LA. $13,846/student.
You'd have better efficiencies of scale to take advantage of in building a 4200 student school, but we'll pretend it should only cost about the same per student. You could say the LA school is going to be even way nicer and cost twice as much and I might buy that argument. You could say they have a bigger bureaucracy to deal with and that's going to double the cost per student again, making it 4x as big and while that's quite a monument to bureaucratic inefficiency, it's certainly believable.
For this school to cost literally 10x as much per student ($137,619/student) as the school we built... there's a lot of graft and people and/or organizations being bought off at that price. There's no other rational explanation for this level of cost.
I mean really, for $124K EXTRA per student they should at least have dorm rooms with bathrooms, etc... on site for all the students and staff....
actually believe that (a) net neutrality decreases broadband users' freedom of choice
Ok, I'll bite.
If the proposed law passes, then I, a member of the broadband users' class of individuals, will not be legally allowed to contract for internet services with an ISP that "will discriminate based on packet origin".
In what logical alternate universe do you inhabit where that doesn't reduce my range of choices?
Either some customers may prefer an ISP that doesn't follow net neutrality, or none of them will.
If some will, then your law now reduces their choices. If none will, then your law is completely pointless.
If you are concerned about people not knowing that their ISP is discriminating, then propose a truth in internet services contracting law where ISPs must publish to their customers their packet discrimination policy. Putting the FCC in charge of private internetworks isn't the answer.
If it actually was a natural monopoly, the government wouldn't have a need to pass laws granting a monopoly... you can't have it both ways.
They are only a monopoly because the laws and regulations create them as such.
Without those laws, you don't actually know what could have already been invented in the market to make last mile technologies much more cost effective. I can think of a few off the top of my head that are very feasible, if it wasn't for government regulations preventing them...
I guess checking Google News for Internet Kill Switch is too much trouble.... this reply is at least as much for the person who said to get news from somewhere other than Slashdot, but it's been proposed and talked about by more than one Congressman. There are multiple bills mentioned in the below quote alone:
News about the Leiberman Senate bill has been in the mainstream press recently, and they've had hearings on it:
Philip Reitinger, deputy undersecretary for the Department of Homeland Security, agreed that the executive branch "may need to take extraordinary measures" to respond to cyberthreats. But Reitinger said that "we believe it is preferable" to have a single organization--that is, an arm of the DHS--handle physical and Internet infrastructure rather than create a new office.
In addition, Reitinger said, the 1934 Communications Act already gives the president broad emergency power. "Congress and the administration should work together to identify any needed adjustments to the act, as opposed to developing overlapping legislation," he said.
Section 706 of that nearly century-old law says if there is a "threat of war," the president may seize control of any "facilities or stations for wire communication"--archaic wording that nevertheless would presumably sweep in broadband providers or Web sites. Anyone who disobeys can be imprisoned for a year.
The idea of an Internet "kill switch" that the president could flip is not new. A draft Senate proposal that CNET obtained in August allowed the White House to "declare a cybersecurity emergency," and another from Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) would have explicitly given the government the power to "order the disconnection" of certain networks or Web sites.
And it's not like the current administration has talked about installing kill switches for portions of the Internet.... just to protect the internet right, not to control it...
You're either too partisan about this issue to bother to do any amount of basic research, such as reading your own link, or else you're just flat out lying. I suppose you could just be trolling.
The person cited in the linked story told police in Colorado that he was a Russian and not an American when they arrested him. Yeah, after the Colorado police told the Feds that they had a foreigner in custody and the Feds transferred him to their facility, the Feds were bureaucratically slow in validating the verification that he was a citizen after all. Blame Obama's immigration department for that.
Also, at no point in the story were Arizona cops involved, nor is the recently passed AZ law that is a little weaker than Federal law, but has some better enforcement provisions against cities in it part of the story. Since, obviously, it hasn't even taken affect yet....
By demonstrating that what the IPCC really means when it says we need to reduce our "carbon footprint" is that everyone should be equally poor, like slum dwellers? There must be a Soviet Russia joke in there somewhere....
Ah, the beauty of the Internet! Knowledge available right at your fingertips!
With a judicious use of wolfram alpha and Google math and unit conversions, we get:
Counting thw whole land area of the world: 5.5 Acres/person
If you just count currently used(not potential, but just actual) farmland: 1/2 acre per person
So the actual usable number if you divided it all out is going to be somewhere between those two. Remember that is per person. If you did only adults, you'd need to multiple the above by 1.5.
Of course, once you start throwing in technology, you can live all sorts of other places on and off the planet...
I made no statements in my post about what I personally believe about global warming. Thus it would be difficult for me to be contradicting myself on that point. At best you could infer that I was doubtful of those who have made such claims of knowledge. Perhaps you could read a bit more carefully next time?
The reasoning in the part of my post you are responding to is pretty straightforward. 1. Groups of people say actions X, Y, and Z (that happen to correspond to the same results those same groups promoted before Global warming was considered a big deal) must be taken to prevent disaster from global warming. 2. A prominent economist who IS ON THEIR SIDE in the debate about global warming (so no accusation can be made that he's just anti-global warming) brings up some research that there are actions A, B, and C which would deal with the supposed effects of global warming much more economically than X, Y, and Z. 3. The groups of people in #1 above attack the economist in #2 because he isn't promoting the "right" solutions. They don't attack the feasibility of the solutions he discussed, nor the studies they are based on, instead they attack him as an enemy of global warning, despite the fact that he actually agrees with them on global warming, just not on what to do about it.
These three things established by public events lead very directly to the conclusion that the groups in #1 are much more concerned about seeing that the actions they propose governments take are done than they are about actually solving any sort of global warming problem. That in turn casts doubt on the sincerity of their believe in actual global warming, as opposed to it just being a pretense they carry on because it fits the ends they want to promote.
Doesn't sounds like a minor mistake, does it? He used in multiple grant applications the totally bogus figures they've had to "correct".
This seems to validate all the "deniers" claims that global warming is just a fraudulent industry designed to keep funding going for the scientists involved by scaring people. The leftists look the other way because they use the man-made global warming alarmism to push through their preferred socialist agenda. That's why they get so angry at anyone who comes up with an alternate solution to the problem. They're not trying to solve a problem, they're using it as an excuse to grab the power to make people do what they want them to do.
"We are not running out of trees or forests. America has three-and-one-half times more forest land today than it had in 1920. America is growing 22 million new acres of forest annually while harvesting but 15 million acres, for a net gain of 7 million acres each year."
I'm sure it wouldn't take much more searching to find other comparable numbers. I'm guessing that 1920 in the quote was picked because it is a low point, but still, it's not like we currently have a big deforestation problem in the US, now is it? "Fully 87 percent of our paper stock comes from trees that are grown as a crop specifically for paper production."
For example CRU was bombarded with "freedom of information" demands for raw data that was not generated by them and that actually belonged to national meteorological services.
No, actually, CRU was sent FOI requests for a listing of what data they included in their analysis and after a lot of resistance and trying to not reply to anything (documented in the emails), finally decided they could get away with just saying that the data is available from the original sources and thus they didn't think they had to provide anything. When it's very clear in the request discussion that what was actually being asked for was the information on what specific parts of the publicly available data they used.
It's impossible to try and recreate their model and their results without knowing which data it's based on. Just saying, "All the data is available somewhere, but we won't tell you which parts of it we actually used" doesn't respond to what is a legitimate request from someone trying to fairly reproduce their results.
If someone said, "We did a study of car crash frequency" it's completely reasonable to ask "What regions and data sets did you use in your study?" and not be told, "It's all crash data available online, but we won't tell you which parts we actually used in our study".
Rush's followers were even called "dittoheads" at one point (I don't know if this moniker is still in use.)
This statement undermines any credibility you may think you have on the topic of Rush Limbaugh. You can't actually know anything about Limbaugh beyond what his political opponents say and make this statement, because it implies something that is demonstratably factually incorrect.
I suggest that you open your mind and actually listen to the people you denigrate for a few hours for a couple of days before forming an opinion based simply on other people's opinions.
Note that I have carefully not made any statements about my own political views here.
If it was a true natural monopoly, the government wouldn't need to enforce a monopoly via regulation. The problem is that it isn't as profitable to the cable companies for it not to be a monopoly, so they convinced local governments to give them one.
It's called regulatory capture and it's what usually happens when the people allow the government too much authority.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have anything you need to send to the USDA where you will benefit if they don't respond within a certain time period.... sounds like we've found your 4-week window to send it to them....
... everyone gets paid leave. It's the law.
Everyone gets paid leave? I'm sure that policy is a great comfort to the unemployed... how much do they get paid for their 30 day leave?
If you are a marginal worker (in economic terms), like the young, inexperienced, or the low-skilled poor laborer, etc... you must make the case to an employer that you are worth more than all the costs government forces on them, including potential firing costs, plus your actual wage before they will be willing to hire you.
Policies like this hurt those who need a job the most.
Why do you think young inexperienced workers in some European countries have rioted recently? Hint, it's not because they are finding it easy to get a job...
First you have to convince them to hire someone for a job period before you can proceed to competing for that job.
Increasing the cost of hiring someone mostly hurts people who are "marginal" (in economic terms) in their ability to get a job. The young, the low-skilled, the poor, etc...
So in Finland, if you want a full-time job with benefits, you have to convince an employer that you are worth paying for 30 days a year when you aren't even working? Or take the equivalent in a lower salary? No legal option for just getting paid for the work you're doing for an employer?
Wow, sucks to look for a job there...
You clearly don't understand enough about ATMs if you think they are more secure than voting machines.
Most ATMs are just barely secure enough to keep the cash from walking away as long as someone can keep a physical eye on the machine (something somewhat inhibited for voting machines by private voting requirements). ATMs generally do a decent job of recording and reporting transactions to a remote server so that when money invariably is stolen (physically or electronically) it can eventually be taken from the correct legally accountable bank account.
A variety of ATMs suffer from default passwords that aren't changed, physical cabinet keys that aren't unique, eavesdropping attacks in the form of card skimmers and cameras, unencrypted transmissions, insecure operating systems, administrative backdoors, etc...
ATMs and voting machines suffer from what are essentially illusions of security that rely on no one smart enough to bypass them having the real desire and resources to do so. When voting machines determine how real power in large amounts is distributed (say, in national elections), they can't hope to stand up to what's at stake unless they are simple enough to be essentially transparent in function to the public.
Rural/Metro in AZ is an actual private fire department (as opposed to the city government department in the article). Their policy in situations like this is to put out the fire and then bill the non-subscribing owner for the cost of services.
Private fire companies in cities in the early days of the U.S. typically had a policy of putting out fires for poor people and non-subscribers so that they wouldn't threaten their paying customers.
In any case, this event is a failure of County government and the folks in the County who don't organize their own fire department. It has nothing to do with private fire departments.
The expected lifespan of the building we built was 50+ years. It's a purpose-build modern public school with all the amenities like commercial kitchen, science labs, art labs, full size basketball gym, sports fields, playgrounds, common area, theater, music and language rooms, administration office space, parking lots, teacher prep rooms, library 3x the size of any other in the community, special education facilities, student gardens, sprinklers, internal steel fire and emergency doors, commercial wire plant, elevator, etc...
It's not like $9 million doesn't get you a lot, even today.... these guys spent almost $140K/student? There is no measurement by which that is a "reasonable" amount...
I was the Board Chair and was directly involved two years ago in building a very nice public school facility, custom designed, for 650 students. It cost $7.5 million to build. Factor in different locational-related costs and that'd be $9 million in LA. $13,846/student.
You'd have better efficiencies of scale to take advantage of in building a 4200 student school, but we'll pretend it should only cost about the same per student. You could say the LA school is going to be even way nicer and cost twice as much and I might buy that argument. You could say they have a bigger bureaucracy to deal with and that's going to double the cost per student again, making it 4x as big and while that's quite a monument to bureaucratic inefficiency, it's certainly believable.
For this school to cost literally 10x as much per student ($137,619/student) as the school we built... there's a lot of graft and people and/or organizations being bought off at that price. There's no other rational explanation for this level of cost.
I mean really, for $124K EXTRA per student they should at least have dorm rooms with bathrooms, etc... on site for all the students and staff....
Sure. That's another viable option today, which would also be illegal under the proposed law.
That's because to be effective, it'd have to start at the edge of the ISP's network, not at the last mile.
Starting to see how the law reduces consumer choice?
Ok, I'll bite.
If the proposed law passes, then I, a member of the broadband users' class of individuals, will not be legally allowed to contract for internet services with an ISP that "will discriminate based on packet origin".
In what logical alternate universe do you inhabit where that doesn't reduce my range of choices?
Either some customers may prefer an ISP that doesn't follow net neutrality, or none of them will.
If some will, then your law now reduces their choices. If none will, then your law is completely pointless.
If you are concerned about people not knowing that their ISP is discriminating, then propose a truth in internet services contracting law where ISPs must publish to their customers their packet discrimination policy. Putting the FCC in charge of private internetworks isn't the answer.
If it actually was a natural monopoly, the government wouldn't have a need to pass laws granting a monopoly... you can't have it both ways.
They are only a monopoly because the laws and regulations create them as such.
Without those laws, you don't actually know what could have already been invented in the market to make last mile technologies much more cost effective. I can think of a few off the top of my head that are very feasible, if it wasn't for government regulations preventing them...
I guess checking Google News for Internet Kill Switch is too much trouble.... this reply is at least as much for the person who said to get news from somewhere other than Slashdot, but it's been proposed and talked about by more than one Congressman. There are multiple bills mentioned in the below quote alone:
News about the Leiberman Senate bill has been in the mainstream press recently, and they've had hearings on it:
And it's not like the current administration has talked about installing kill switches for portions of the Internet.... just to protect the internet right, not to control it...
You're either too partisan about this issue to bother to do any amount of basic research, such as reading your own link, or else you're just flat out lying. I suppose you could just be trolling.
The person cited in the linked story told police in Colorado that he was a Russian and not an American when they arrested him. Yeah, after the Colorado police told the Feds that they had a foreigner in custody and the Feds transferred him to their facility, the Feds were bureaucratically slow in validating the verification that he was a citizen after all. Blame Obama's immigration department for that.
Also, at no point in the story were Arizona cops involved, nor is the recently passed AZ law that is a little weaker than Federal law, but has some better enforcement provisions against cities in it part of the story. Since, obviously, it hasn't even taken affect yet....
By proving that property rights are necessary for masses of people to live decent lives?
By demonstrating that what the IPCC really means when it says we need to reduce our "carbon footprint" is that everyone should be equally poor, like slum dwellers? There must be a Soviet Russia joke in there somewhere....
Learn some basic economics and research the Simon-Ehrlich Wager and other proofs that your assumptions are incorrect.
Your point of view has proclaimed and proven wrong several times over hundreds of years, but people still fall for the old fallacies, don't they?
Ah, the beauty of the Internet! Knowledge available right at your fingertips!
With a judicious use of wolfram alpha and Google math and unit conversions, we get:
Counting thw whole land area of the world:
5.5 Acres/person
If you just count currently used(not potential, but just actual) farmland:
1/2 acre per person
So the actual usable number if you divided it all out is going to be somewhere between those two. Remember that is per person. If you did only adults, you'd need to multiple the above by 1.5.
Of course, once you start throwing in technology, you can live all sorts of other places on and off the planet...
I made no statements in my post about what I personally believe about global warming. Thus it would be difficult for me to be contradicting myself on that point. At best you could infer that I was doubtful of those who have made such claims of knowledge. Perhaps you could read a bit more carefully next time?
The reasoning in the part of my post you are responding to is pretty straightforward.
1. Groups of people say actions X, Y, and Z (that happen to correspond to the same results those same groups promoted before Global warming was considered a big deal) must be taken to prevent disaster from global warming.
2. A prominent economist who IS ON THEIR SIDE in the debate about global warming (so no accusation can be made that he's just anti-global warming) brings up some research that there are actions A, B, and C which would deal with the supposed effects of global warming much more economically than X, Y, and Z.
3. The groups of people in #1 above attack the economist in #2 because he isn't promoting the "right" solutions. They don't attack the feasibility of the solutions he discussed, nor the studies they are based on, instead they attack him as an enemy of global warning, despite the fact that he actually agrees with them on global warming, just not on what to do about it.
These three things established by public events lead very directly to the conclusion that the groups in #1 are much more concerned about seeing that the actions they propose governments take are done than they are about actually solving any sort of global warming problem. That in turn casts doubt on the sincerity of their believe in actual global warming, as opposed to it just being a pretense they carry on because it fits the ends they want to promote.
What do you make of the fact that the IPCC Chairman used these claims to get millions in grant money?
Doesn't sounds like a minor mistake, does it? He used in multiple grant applications the totally bogus figures they've had to "correct".
This seems to validate all the "deniers" claims that global warming is just a fraudulent industry designed to keep funding going for the scientists involved by scaring people. The leftists look the other way because they use the man-made global warming alarmism to push through their preferred socialist agenda. That's why they get so angry at anyone who comes up with an alternate solution to the problem. They're not trying to solve a problem, they're using it as an excuse to grab the power to make people do what they want them to do.
A quick google search reveals this quote from '92.
I'm sure it wouldn't take much more searching to find other comparable numbers. I'm guessing that 1920 in the quote was picked because it is a low point, but still, it's not like we currently have a big deforestation problem in the US, now is it? "Fully 87 percent of our paper stock comes from trees that are grown as a crop specifically for paper production."
No, actually, CRU was sent FOI requests for a listing of what data they included in their analysis and after a lot of resistance and trying to not reply to anything (documented in the emails), finally decided they could get away with just saying that the data is available from the original sources and thus they didn't think they had to provide anything. When it's very clear in the request discussion that what was actually being asked for was the information on what specific parts of the publicly available data they used.
It's impossible to try and recreate their model and their results without knowing which data it's based on. Just saying, "All the data is available somewhere, but we won't tell you which parts of it we actually used" doesn't respond to what is a legitimate request from someone trying to fairly reproduce their results.
If someone said, "We did a study of car crash frequency" it's completely reasonable to ask "What regions and data sets did you use in your study?" and not be told, "It's all crash data available online, but we won't tell you which parts we actually used in our study".
This statement undermines any credibility you may think you have on the topic of Rush Limbaugh. You can't actually know anything about Limbaugh beyond what his political opponents say and make this statement, because it implies something that is demonstratably factually incorrect.
I suggest that you open your mind and actually listen to the people you denigrate for a few hours for a couple of days before forming an opinion based simply on other people's opinions.
Note that I have carefully not made any statements about my own political views here.
If it was a true natural monopoly, the government wouldn't need to enforce a monopoly via regulation. The problem is that it isn't as profitable to the cable companies for it not to be a monopoly, so they convinced local governments to give them one.
It's called regulatory capture and it's what usually happens when the people allow the government too much authority.
They should just provide a link on the site to the online version of the court order listing all the links they're supposed to delete.
Then let them sue the court.