I'm pretty sure the concern is not whether they use the information for anything other than creating a more-informed utility user, but that they can put it to other use and may not be currently prevented from doing so.
Given the rise of data mining, it is entirely possible that tomorrow, next week, or next year, any given utility may realize they are sitting on a gold mine of information which they can sell to data miners. Depending on the currently-implemented regulations a given utility operates under, they may or may not be legally able to do such, but good luck in figuring out if your particular utility's regulatory authority has regulations in place which can or do apply.
In addition, it can be collected by anyone who has the appropriate equipment, not just the utility to which you are connected.
No, it was actually a result of New Hampshire attempting to force Dartmouth College to become a public institution after the president of the College was deposed by its trustees.
While I agree the math fails as being insructive because of the nature of the market segments being discussed, one thing MS may eventually have to be worried about is Android being back-ported to larger machines. If Android reaches a large enough market penetration that people are almost universally comfortable with Android devices, such a move could have enormous implications for MS dominance in the consumer space.
That's likely years down the line though, so I'm not going to call it a prediction, just a possibility.
It's because the OEM key is embedded into the disk. If you're running an install on an OEM motherboard with an OEM disk, the key is irrelevant. The copy is authenticated by a table in the BIOS, and the sticker on the case is just for show. It won't ever actually match the extracted key, even if you just received the machine new from the OEM. You can change and re-embed one of those sticker keys into a disk, but an actual original OEM disk will have the same key on it as every other disk.
Yup. The only people I know equating libertarians and corporate personhood are people who knee-jerk hate libertarians.
I don't know any who support corporate personhood, and many who either imply or explicitly state that, since corporations are a status created by the state they are liable to the state for all their actions.
If you see trends in the power profiles of hundreds or thousands of people, it is not difficult to then extrapolate certain key indicators which show certain types of activity with reasonable certainty. It's just like any other sort of statistical profiling, and it's well-known (if not well-liked) that such profiling is effective.
There's something that always gives away someone who doesn't understand the definition of words they use: Using them incorrectly and acting as if there is no other way to use them.
I routinely pay more for many things than I otherwise could, specifically because I wish to promote the model they use as preferable to those which hide their complete (monetary and non-monetary) impact.
You can argue about what "appropriate use" really is, but no, setting up guidelines which serve to benefit more than one person or homogeneous group cannot be classified as "narcissistic and selfish" behavior. Those necessarily preclude the recognition of anyone else's experience mattering one single whit.
Whether he's correct or not, I'm pretty sure the argument is that China is underselling but getting something worth more than the balance in money in return.
Money is not the only way to keep score, and even if it is you can turn an interim loss into a long-term gain if you play your cards right. In the case of China, if countries continue to use them for manufacturing to the detriment of their own manufacturing bases, the long-term effect will be China making far more in the balance by eventually ending up with the majority of control over world-wide manufacturing, thus being able to charge massive amounts until the rest of the world rebuilds their domestic manufacturing industries. The pace at which other countries respond will determine the amplitude and wavelength of the resulting price swings.
Like most things, it's something which will self-correct eventually if it is actually the case, but the logic itself isn't at fault. Whether it actually applies in this situation is another question entirely, and one I'm not going to dive into at this time.
I use the common line to contact person B. Later, person C uses that same party line to contact person D and E. Person E used that party line to contact person F a week before my contact with person B.
According to the **AA, all parties interacted together by virtue of access via the party line, despite the massive temporal gaps between those discrete contacts and the fact that, at most, only 3 people were in direct contact with each other, ever.
Contrary to TFS, somehow I doubt the manufacturing location will be absent in Google's marketing campaign. You don't choose to manufacture a device in a higher-cost location, lose out on competitive price-points, and then completely fail to capitalize on the one major marketing advantage that is present as a result of that decision.
Calling coverage for things which are guaranteed to occur "insurance" has always annoyed me. It's a sign someone is either ignorant or intellectually lazy. I'm glad it's not just me.
Universal healthcare and "insurance" are mutually exclusive ideas. Aren't there any actuaries on Slashdot? Nobody who understands that uncertainty != certainty? I mean, it's not like we're talking about quantum mechanics here...
Not entirely, but given the tax rate and income scales, most healthy young people can pay a whole lot less and go without coverage, thus raising the overall risk pool and the rates for everyone else. Then, if they get sick, they can't be denied coverage.
At $50,000 a year, the penalty is only $1250 yearly. If coverage is over $100/month, it's cheaper to go without and only get it once something happens. I guarantee you a lot of people will go this route. It's an actuarial nightmare if you care about keeping costs for those in the system manageable.
At the end of the day, the same people who were paying the bill before will still be paying the bill now, except there's now a financial incentive for someone who's young and healthy to actually opt out.
Quite correct regarding the difference between the statutory definition of words (which can change between statute) and the Constitutional requirement to define something specifically in regard to how it actually functions. In terms of the Constitution, it must be either a tax or a penalty. There exists no creature which is both, and Congress must write legislation one way or the other. The conversion should not be made judicially in order to save it simply because Congress was hedging their bets on whether one form or the other would be struck down. The fact that hedge worked in this case is a horrible precedent to set. Rather than frame an issue explicitly in one way, they can frame it vaguely in a number of different ways and just hope one sticks.
Regarding the tax vs penalty debate, the dissent distills it quite well (citations removed for clarity):
The Government contends, however, as expressed in the caption to Part II of its brief, that “THE MINIMUM COVERAGE PROVISION IS INDEPENDENTLY AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS’S TAXING POWER.” The phrase “independently authorized” suggests the existence of a creature never hitherto seen in the United States Reports: A penalty for constitutional purposes that is also a tax for constitutional purposes. In all our cases the two are mutually exclusive. The provision challenged under the Constitution is either a penalty or else a tax. Of course in many cases what was a regulatory mandate enforced by a penalty could have been imposed as a tax upon permissible action; or what was imposed as a tax upon permissible action could have been a regulatory mandate enforced by a penalty. But we know of no case, and the Government cites none, in which the imposition was, for constitutional purposes, both. The two are mutually exclusive. Thus, what the Government’s caption should have read was “ALTERNATIVELY, THE MINIMUM COVERAGE PROVISION IS NOT A MANDATE-WITH-PENALTY BUT A TAX.” It is important to bear this in mind in evaluating the tax argument of the Government and of those who support it: The issue is not whether Congress had the power to frame the minimum-coverage provision as a tax, but whether it did so.
In answering that question we must, if “fairly possible,” construe the provision to be a tax rather than a mandate-with-penalty, since that would render it constitutional rather than unconstitutional (ut res magis valeat quam pereat). But we cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not. “‘“[A]lthough this Court will often strain to construe legislation so as to save it against constitutional attack, it must not and will not carry this to the point of perverting the purpose of a statute . ..” or judicially rewriting it.’” In this case, there is simply no way, “without doing violence to the fair meaning of the words used,” to escape what Congress enacted: a mandate that individuals maintain minimum essential coverage, enforced by a penalty.
Our cases establish a clear line between a tax and a penalty: “‘[A] tax is an enforced contribution to provide for the support of government; a penalty . . . is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act.’” In a few cases, this Court has held that a “tax” imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. But we have never held—never—that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power—even when the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here)the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty. When an act “adopt[s] the criteria of wrongdoing” and then imposes a monetary penalty as the “principal consequence on those who transgress its standard,” it creates a regulatory penalty, not a tax.
So the question is, quite simply, whether the exaction here is imposed for violation of the law. It unquestionably is.
However, outside of a long-winded explanation the label applied to you will differ depending on which partisan is applying it. And all of them will be applied pejoratively.
Since there were people who could only see the edge of a board and yet still insisted they could describe all points on it in the terms afforded by their limited perspective.
Man, I'd love it if the far-right supported non-intervention in social behaviors. Oh wait, you're just confused about what makes someone libertarian. Gotta love it when one-dimensional logic is used to try and describe a world with more than one dimension.
Opposition to regulation does not a Libertarian make, though it gets good press amongst others who also label a group by one single aspect without checking to see if they also conform to all the other important aspects which actually define that group.
That's your imaginary conception of Libertarians, anyway. Find me a group of the people you described above who also support gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana, and you might start to gain some traction (they exist, but there aren't a whole lot of them). Until then, they're just far-right conservatives.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure the concern is not whether they use the information for anything other than creating a more-informed utility user, but that they can put it to other use and may not be currently prevented from doing so.
Given the rise of data mining, it is entirely possible that tomorrow, next week, or next year, any given utility may realize they are sitting on a gold mine of information which they can sell to data miners. Depending on the currently-implemented regulations a given utility operates under, they may or may not be legally able to do such, but good luck in figuring out if your particular utility's regulatory authority has regulations in place which can or do apply.
In addition, it can be collected by anyone who has the appropriate equipment, not just the utility to which you are connected.
No, it was actually a result of New Hampshire attempting to force Dartmouth College to become a public institution after the president of the College was deposed by its trustees.
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518 (1819)
Windows: Enjoy doing whatever you want on an essentially stable botnet.
They've all got problems. That's Windows' particular weak spot.
While I agree the math fails as being insructive because of the nature of the market segments being discussed, one thing MS may eventually have to be worried about is Android being back-ported to larger machines. If Android reaches a large enough market penetration that people are almost universally comfortable with Android devices, such a move could have enormous implications for MS dominance in the consumer space.
That's likely years down the line though, so I'm not going to call it a prediction, just a possibility.
That would be great if all it took to deal with the changes in hydrostatic pressure from sea levels rising was to build sea walls.
Unfortunately, a sea wall wouldn't do a damn thing to prevent any of the actual engineering challenges resulting from rising sea levels.
I'm pretty sure that the relevant law would require an explicit revocation date, rather than it being contingent on a random happenstance.
I could be completely incorrect on this point though.
It's because the OEM key is embedded into the disk. If you're running an install on an OEM motherboard with an OEM disk, the key is irrelevant. The copy is authenticated by a table in the BIOS, and the sticker on the case is just for show. It won't ever actually match the extracted key, even if you just received the machine new from the OEM. You can change and re-embed one of those sticker keys into a disk, but an actual original OEM disk will have the same key on it as every other disk.
This was the case up through XP, anyway.
Yup. The only people I know equating libertarians and corporate personhood are people who knee-jerk hate libertarians.
I don't know any who support corporate personhood, and many who either imply or explicitly state that, since corporations are a status created by the state they are liable to the state for all their actions.
To be pedantic, neither of those are particularly useful.
The logic, though, is sound. Having those metrics at the substation level can be quite useful.
If you see trends in the power profiles of hundreds or thousands of people, it is not difficult to then extrapolate certain key indicators which show certain types of activity with reasonable certainty. It's just like any other sort of statistical profiling, and it's well-known (if not well-liked) that such profiling is effective.
Not "buzzy" enough. It has six syllables, thus is vastly beyond the capability of most consumers to understand.
You've got it backward, you run Blender on Linux, not vice versa.
There's something that always gives away someone who doesn't understand the definition of words they use: Using them incorrectly and acting as if there is no other way to use them.
I routinely pay more for many things than I otherwise could, specifically because I wish to promote the model they use as preferable to those which hide their complete (monetary and non-monetary) impact.
You can argue about what "appropriate use" really is, but no, setting up guidelines which serve to benefit more than one person or homogeneous group cannot be classified as "narcissistic and selfish" behavior. Those necessarily preclude the recognition of anyone else's experience mattering one single whit.
Whether he's correct or not, I'm pretty sure the argument is that China is underselling but getting something worth more than the balance in money in return.
Money is not the only way to keep score, and even if it is you can turn an interim loss into a long-term gain if you play your cards right. In the case of China, if countries continue to use them for manufacturing to the detriment of their own manufacturing bases, the long-term effect will be China making far more in the balance by eventually ending up with the majority of control over world-wide manufacturing, thus being able to charge massive amounts until the rest of the world rebuilds their domestic manufacturing industries. The pace at which other countries respond will determine the amplitude and wavelength of the resulting price swings.
Like most things, it's something which will self-correct eventually if it is actually the case, but the logic itself isn't at fault. Whether it actually applies in this situation is another question entirely, and one I'm not going to dive into at this time.
Not at all. It's more like a party line.
I use the common line to contact person B. Later, person C uses that same party line to contact person D and E. Person E used that party line to contact person F a week before my contact with person B.
According to the **AA, all parties interacted together by virtue of access via the party line, despite the massive temporal gaps between those discrete contacts and the fact that, at most, only 3 people were in direct contact with each other, ever.
More heads make for a better scene.
Contrary to TFS, somehow I doubt the manufacturing location will be absent in Google's marketing campaign. You don't choose to manufacture a device in a higher-cost location, lose out on competitive price-points, and then completely fail to capitalize on the one major marketing advantage that is present as a result of that decision.
Calling coverage for things which are guaranteed to occur "insurance" has always annoyed me. It's a sign someone is either ignorant or intellectually lazy. I'm glad it's not just me.
Universal healthcare and "insurance" are mutually exclusive ideas. Aren't there any actuaries on Slashdot? Nobody who understands that uncertainty != certainty? I mean, it's not like we're talking about quantum mechanics here...
Not entirely, but given the tax rate and income scales, most healthy young people can pay a whole lot less and go without coverage, thus raising the overall risk pool and the rates for everyone else. Then, if they get sick, they can't be denied coverage.
At $50,000 a year, the penalty is only $1250 yearly. If coverage is over $100/month, it's cheaper to go without and only get it once something happens. I guarantee you a lot of people will go this route. It's an actuarial nightmare if you care about keeping costs for those in the system manageable.
At the end of the day, the same people who were paying the bill before will still be paying the bill now, except there's now a financial incentive for someone who's young and healthy to actually opt out.
Quite correct regarding the difference between the statutory definition of words (which can change between statute) and the Constitutional requirement to define something specifically in regard to how it actually functions. In terms of the Constitution, it must be either a tax or a penalty. There exists no creature which is both, and Congress must write legislation one way or the other. The conversion should not be made judicially in order to save it simply because Congress was hedging their bets on whether one form or the other would be struck down. The fact that hedge worked in this case is a horrible precedent to set. Rather than frame an issue explicitly in one way, they can frame it vaguely in a number of different ways and just hope one sticks.
Regarding the tax vs penalty debate, the dissent distills it quite well (citations removed for clarity):
Reasonable.
However, outside of a long-winded explanation the label applied to you will differ depending on which partisan is applying it. And all of them will be applied pejoratively.
Since there were people who could only see the edge of a board and yet still insisted they could describe all points on it in the terms afforded by their limited perspective.
Man, I'd love it if the far-right supported non-intervention in social behaviors. Oh wait, you're just confused about what makes someone libertarian. Gotta love it when one-dimensional logic is used to try and describe a world with more than one dimension.
Opposition to regulation does not a Libertarian make, though it gets good press amongst others who also label a group by one single aspect without checking to see if they also conform to all the other important aspects which actually define that group.
That's your imaginary conception of Libertarians, anyway. Find me a group of the people you described above who also support gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana, and you might start to gain some traction (they exist, but there aren't a whole lot of them). Until then, they're just far-right conservatives.