One needs to separate "marriage" as a private/religious institution from government reward of the same. The only legitimate interest, IMO, for government giving special privileges to those who marry (tax benefits, primarily) are related to preventing offspring from becoming wards of the state, something which doesn't apply to homosexual couples.
Please provide an analysis on his introduced legislation. My comment was a bit flippant. I suspect many of his bills were meant to remove laws which were on the books, which I can support.
And yet, if you read the linked article, they wish "to stop attempts to impose 'Net Neutrality' rules on broadband providers [and] broaden private control of the wireless spectrum," neither of which act to "allow the free flow of information," nor are they supportive of "Internet freedom."
I made a contribution to one of Ron's 2008 "money bombs." From that simple action, I started getting spam from Ron, the Campaign for Liberty, the Rand Paul campaign, and state campaigns. All with "no one's listening" return addresses.
Somehow, this move reeks of opportunism - they have not shown any real understanding of Internet privacy, and certainly haven't "walked the walk."
Per-capita has nothing to do with it, because that's not the pool Nobel candidates are drawn from. At least for the sciences, it might be reasonable to equate that pool with holders of doctoral degrees. Even that is probably too broad, but I'm not going to spend the time researching the number of researchers in each Nobel prize field in each country.
The OECD says "the share of doctorate holders in the population or labour force is two or three times larger in Germany and Switzerland than in Australia, Canada and the United States." Specifically, there are 8.4 doctorates/1000 in the US, and 23.0/1000 in Switzerland. Adjusting the GP's figures,
US 0.102/1000 doctorates
Switzerland 0.120/1000 doctorates
Which in turn, also needs adjustment for the rate of population change over the past century (mentioned in another post).
Someone else can dig for the other countries, but given the small sample size of Nobel prize winners, I don't see any significant difference between the US and Switzerland, and I don't think it's anything except a pissing contest, anyway.
but when you get a new handset, you renew your contract.
That's simply not true. There's a large market for used and new phones outside of the carriers. Just look on eBay or Craigslist.
They can only get contract renewals by binding them together with handset upgrades
It only matters that a customer continue with the carrier, not that they sign a x year contract extension. AFAIK, all the carriers do month-by-month contract extensions automatically when the original term ends. Sure, they'd love to lock you in for a longer term, but they actually make more money if you don't. You're also incorrect, in that carriers may offer other incentives for new contracts (sign up now, get twice the data for the same price).
VZW's recent moves to eliminate unlimited data and charge a $35 upgrade fee if a customer gets a new, subsidized phone shows that it's the service revenue they care about, not the hardware. Neither of those provides an incentive to upgrade with subsidized hardware.
" I do not see any need to exclude Norway and Sweeden at all."
Unless you're Swiss, that is.:-)
There are 111 years of Nobel prizes. Unless the GP researched populations for each of those years, and then correlated that with the winners for those year, the claim is flawed. Populations change, and using current populations for prizes given across 111 years isn't valid. If prizes/population is even a valid measure, the US population has grown at a faster rate than many other populations.
Swiss population 1900: 3,315,400 2010: 7870100, a 137% increase.
Danish population 1900 2432000, 2010: 5548000, a 128% increase.
US population 1900: 92,228,496 2010: 308,745,538, a 235% increase.
what incentive is there to keep your device up to date? It's just a money sink to them, and they'd much rather have you drooling over an early upgrade
Huh? Carriers make their money on service, not hardware. That's why they're willing to sell you a phone at a loss to get you to sign a new contract. As long as they can get customers to stay with them, it's beneficial if you keep the equipment you have as long as possible. That changes somewhat with technology changes. Right now, carriers have an incentive to get (data consuming) customers to move to LTE, because it's cheaper to provide bandwidth there.
Verizon recently changed things around, if you want a subsidized phone, you have to give up grandfathered unlimited data. So, they'll be trying to get people to move to new phones to force that. But I suspect many will simply stretch out their phones life with privately developed upgrades, or buy future phones used or at full retail. Hopefully, the eventual move to VoLTE will create a more competitive market for handsets in the US, and make service and hardware more separate, and it has been with GSM, etc. in most of the world. At that point, it's likely that phone manufacturer's will sell directly, and OS upgrades will be a selling advantage.
apparently the time is still off by the GPS-UTC difference, you still can't do voice commands via Bluetooth (such as when in a car dock), and the email client sends even plain text as base64 encoded.
" those who think the government should stay out of the economy"
Want to clarify that?
The federal government obviously has powers which put it "in the economy." It has the power to lay and collect taxes, pay debts, borrow money, regulate commerce (foreign and interstate), coin money, regulate the value.
It's the states where companies are incorporated.
In what way would desiring a limited use of those federal powers conflict with allowing states to provide a mechanism for incorporation, as implied by your question?
It's not "giving the government this power," in any way. The government is not obligated to allow corporations to exist at all. When they do, they have a right to set the terms. You have a free choice - become part of a corporation under those terms, or don't. In no way does having that choice restrict your rights.
I never said they had the right. I said they had the authority.
All government authority comes from the Constitution. They do not have that authority, despite the government's self-serving interpretation that they do. The only thing in the Constitution you can point to is the interstate commerce clause, which plainly does not apply to intrastate commerce.
Current US law is built on a collection of illogical, disingenuous rationalizations which bear no relation to the clear word and intent of our Constitution.
A company is a group of people who pool their money to start some sort of enterprise.
Right.
Any organization made up of people have free speech rights.
Almost, not quite.
The "corporations shouldn't have rights" is a load of horseshit
Wrong.
A corporation (which is a subset of "company") is an artificial legal construct, under which the corporation receives special treatment. It allows people to pool together while avoiding liability, to account separately for income and taxes, to sell equity. The same law which creates corporations and gives them these special privileges should be able to restrict the purposes for which those corporations can be formed. This in no way interferes with the ability of people to form unincorporated companies to exercise common speech.
No, the feds have the power to regulate interstate commerce. That the Supremes said that red is green in Wickard v. Filburn doesn't make it so, it just makes the hypocrisy in law more transparent. You have freedom of association because it is an innate right, not because it's mentioned in the Bill of Rights (which only serves to remind the government of that right). You have rights not mentioned in the Constitution, which it recognizes (9th A), even if the government doesn't.
Citizen's United was bad law because corporations are a completely artificial construct of law. The law should be able to place any sort of arbitrary limit on those corporations. There's nothing preventing groups of people from forming unincorporated companies to speak in common, so there's no conflict with free speech rights. They don't because then they don't get the advantages (such as limited liability, separate taxation, and the ability to sell equity) provided by incorporation.
Slashdot Mirror
"'State's rights' in practice is almost always a way to hide one's immoral motives."
That claim is only a small step away from Godwin.
Then, if they had a clue, they would reference specific bills/text, and not "net neutrality," for which anyone with a clue understands the meaning.
"Name ONE thing Obama has wanted that is actually good for the country."
Not having Palin as VP.
One needs to separate "marriage" as a private/religious institution from government reward of the same. The only legitimate interest, IMO, for government giving special privileges to those who marry (tax benefits, primarily) are related to preventing offspring from becoming wards of the state, something which doesn't apply to homosexual couples.
Please provide an analysis on his introduced legislation. My comment was a bit flippant. I suspect many of his bills were meant to remove laws which were on the books, which I can support.
Thanks for that.
Sounds like a great record to me. The less Congress does, the better. Not every problem is something for government to try to solve.
And yet, if you read the linked article, they wish "to stop attempts to impose 'Net Neutrality' rules on broadband providers [and] broaden private control of the wireless spectrum," neither of which act to "allow the free flow of information," nor are they supportive of "Internet freedom."
they need to get a clue.
I made a contribution to one of Ron's 2008 "money bombs." From that simple action, I started getting spam from Ron, the Campaign for Liberty, the Rand Paul campaign, and state campaigns. All with "no one's listening" return addresses.
Somehow, this move reeks of opportunism - they have not shown any real understanding of Internet privacy, and certainly haven't "walked the walk."
Per-capita has nothing to do with it, because that's not the pool Nobel candidates are drawn from. At least for the sciences, it might be reasonable to equate that pool with holders of doctoral degrees. Even that is probably too broad, but I'm not going to spend the time researching the number of researchers in each Nobel prize field in each country.
The OECD says "the share of doctorate holders in the population or labour force is two or three times larger in Germany and Switzerland than in Australia, Canada and the United States." Specifically, there are 8.4 doctorates/1000 in the US, and 23.0/1000 in Switzerland. Adjusting the GP's figures,
US 0.102/1000 doctorates
Switzerland 0.120/1000 doctorates
Which in turn, also needs adjustment for the rate of population change over the past century (mentioned in another post).
Someone else can dig for the other countries, but given the small sample size of Nobel prize winners, I don't see any significant difference between the US and Switzerland, and I don't think it's anything except a pissing contest, anyway.
That's simply not true. There's a large market for used and new phones outside of the carriers. Just look on eBay or Craigslist.
It only matters that a customer continue with the carrier, not that they sign a x year contract extension. AFAIK, all the carriers do month-by-month contract extensions automatically when the original term ends. Sure, they'd love to lock you in for a longer term, but they actually make more money if you don't. You're also incorrect, in that carriers may offer other incentives for new contracts (sign up now, get twice the data for the same price).
VZW's recent moves to eliminate unlimited data and charge a $35 upgrade fee if a customer gets a new, subsidized phone shows that it's the service revenue they care about, not the hardware. Neither of those provides an incentive to upgrade with subsidized hardware.
" I do not see any need to exclude Norway and Sweeden at all."
:-)
Unless you're Swiss, that is.
There are 111 years of Nobel prizes. Unless the GP researched populations for each of those years, and then correlated that with the winners for those year, the claim is flawed. Populations change, and using current populations for prizes given across 111 years isn't valid. If prizes/population is even a valid measure, the US population has grown at a faster rate than many other populations.
Swiss population 1900: 3,315,400 2010: 7870100, a 137% increase.
Danish population 1900 2432000, 2010: 5548000, a 128% increase.
US population 1900: 92,228,496 2010: 308,745,538, a 235% increase.
Link to issue. (2 years old)
It does require a minimum of reading, and a willingness to not quote out of context. "unincorporated association"
A corporation merely takes it a step further, becoming chartered by a state government, and gaining additional privileges.
Clearly, you're intent on ignoring well known facts which don't fit your POV. This discussion is over.
Huh? Carriers make their money on service, not hardware. That's why they're willing to sell you a phone at a loss to get you to sign a new contract. As long as they can get customers to stay with them, it's beneficial if you keep the equipment you have as long as possible. That changes somewhat with technology changes. Right now, carriers have an incentive to get (data consuming) customers to move to LTE, because it's cheaper to provide bandwidth there.
Verizon recently changed things around, if you want a subsidized phone, you have to give up grandfathered unlimited data. So, they'll be trying to get people to move to new phones to force that. But I suspect many will simply stretch out their phones life with privately developed upgrades, or buy future phones used or at full retail. Hopefully, the eventual move to VoLTE will create a more competitive market for handsets in the US, and make service and hardware more separate, and it has been with GSM, etc. in most of the world. At that point, it's likely that phone manufacturer's will sell directly, and OS upgrades will be a selling advantage.
Sure.
"You can't form an unincorporated company "
Of course you (or rather, a group of people) can.
apparently the time is still off by the GPS-UTC difference, you still can't do voice commands via Bluetooth (such as when in a car dock), and the email client sends even plain text as base64 encoded.
" those who think the government should stay out of the economy"
Want to clarify that?
The federal government obviously has powers which put it "in the economy." It has the power to lay and collect taxes, pay debts, borrow money, regulate commerce (foreign and interstate), coin money, regulate the value.
It's the states where companies are incorporated.
In what way would desiring a limited use of those federal powers conflict with allowing states to provide a mechanism for incorporation, as implied by your question?
It's not "giving the government this power," in any way. The government is not obligated to allow corporations to exist at all. When they do, they have a right to set the terms. You have a free choice - become part of a corporation under those terms, or don't. In no way does having that choice restrict your rights.
All government authority comes from the Constitution. They do not have that authority, despite the government's self-serving interpretation that they do. The only thing in the Constitution you can point to is the interstate commerce clause, which plainly does not apply to intrastate commerce.
Current US law is built on a collection of illogical, disingenuous rationalizations which bear no relation to the clear word and intent of our Constitution.
Right.
Almost, not quite.
Wrong.
A corporation (which is a subset of "company") is an artificial legal construct, under which the corporation receives special treatment. It allows people to pool together while avoiding liability, to account separately for income and taxes, to sell equity. The same law which creates corporations and gives them these special privileges should be able to restrict the purposes for which those corporations can be formed. This in no way interferes with the ability of people to form unincorporated companies to exercise common speech.
That they don't have the authority, doesn't mean they don't. Despite the 2nd A, they have the bigger guns.
No, the feds have the power to regulate interstate commerce. That the Supremes said that red is green in Wickard v. Filburn doesn't make it so, it just makes the hypocrisy in law more transparent. You have freedom of association because it is an innate right, not because it's mentioned in the Bill of Rights (which only serves to remind the government of that right). You have rights not mentioned in the Constitution, which it recognizes (9th A), even if the government doesn't.
Citizen's United was bad law because corporations are a completely artificial construct of law. The law should be able to place any sort of arbitrary limit on those corporations. There's nothing preventing groups of people from forming unincorporated companies to speak in common, so there's no conflict with free speech rights. They don't because then they don't get the advantages (such as limited liability, separate taxation, and the ability to sell equity) provided by incorporation.