My gut feeling is that Bush, Gore, and so forth worry a bit about the slippery slope. Suppose one, say, gives same-sex marriages (or civil unions, if a diction compromise is necessary) full status.
How about simply 'committed partners', who cohabit and have a similar relationship? How about arrangements were people cohabit? Or threesomes -- if marriage isn't involved, it's not bigamy...
What would matter would be the paperwork -- after all, the Gov't isn't involved in defining the religious or social aspects of marriage, but merely establishing matters of record and seeing to it that one credited by one state is valid in all. If you establish the precedent that a simple ceremony for a same-sex partnership is valid and can be entered, then it seems unclear that ANY partnership, maybe including those that involve more than two people (as long as it's not called marriage) should be credited as well, and extended the same benefits.
Which suggests perhaps that the legal status of marriage MAY be ill-founded and should be abolished (replaced with stronger laws governing rights and responsibility of the custodians of children, perhaps) but that is an argument that I doubt any major candidate would DARE to make because of the number of privileges and responsibilities normally accorded to marriages (even childless ones).
Hrm. My first guess would be 'ever' -- have they ever tried that drug (i.e. in their lifetime, have they ever used it), even once. Not too many other rational explanations I'd think, as he lacks a time machine to project into the future (as in 'of today's 10th graders, X% will use cocaine throughout the rest of their life' or whatever).
My NYT Almanac notes that in 1998, unemployment in Finland reached 12%. GDP, $20,100 per capita, estimate for the same year. For the US, figures for the same year were 4.9% and $31,500, respectively.
Your social safety net is HURTING the masses. It's not a coincidence that unemployment in Europe tends to be higher, and per capita productivity lower. How's the unemployment in the former DDR, nowadays? Or, say, France -- what, 11.5% in 1998, I see? Guess they should reduce the workweek AGAIN, just to create more jobs... oh, and disallow employers from cutting salaries to compensate, of course.
Huge social safety nets drastically increase the number of people who'll need them.
Hagelin #9 sounded very, very New Agey to me. Which is more than slightly strange, considering that one would think most physicists would be a touch more skeptical...
Greenspan DID state that deficit reduction would be best. However, he then acknowledged that this was very unlikely -- Congressmen are not known for fiscal restraint when constituencies come a-bayin' -- and then stated that given the nearly inevitable choice between tax cuts or government programs, he would prefer tax cuts.
Ex-Surgeon General Joceyln Elders also had a MASSIVE conflict of interest there; her son had been arrested for drug possession. It would be silly to point out that this might easily have influenced her viewpoint, considering that she was in favor of cracking down on 'baccy.
FWIW, Pennsylvania's Attorney General apparently thinks drug enforcement is still popular in his state; he's been running ads touting his intrastate war on drugs. Then again, I've never seen a mention of ANY opponent yet, so the election may well be his to discard at will...
Which means only that neither Congress, nor any State (later amendment -- 14th IIRC) can pass a law that establishes a state religion.
It does NOT trivially translate into, say, banning a student-led prayer at school, which could be argued as a USE of the 1st Amendment; for a State to ban religious expression by students would be problematic in light of Constitutional protections for religious freedom, free assembly and free speech.
Think 'nearest-neighbor' search. I wouldn't be surprised if this were a prepared answer for the church-and-state question, given that the GOP is regularly accused of being controlled by right-wing Christians.
Maybe the metaphor needs to be broadened. We've already got hundreds (well, probably) of Sodoms and Gomorrahs online, ready to be terminally DOSed by yahweh@heaven.org...:-)
Um, Napster is simultaneously promising to implement capabilities that in court they testified that they don't have -- namely, to monitor the transfers themselves, in order to determine which MP3s are transferred when.
Perhaps the Court will be interested to learn why, if they now claim that it's possible when they had been arguing they could not, they should have ANY credibility, or shouldn't be nailed for massive amounts of negligence in the design of their system.
Arguably, to demand. An awful lot of people are willing to pay awful lots of money to procure drugs. That's one heck of an incentive.
Apparently, it's very profitable to synthesize and smuggle drugs; borders are pretty porous (the level of manpower needed to stop and search every potential drug smuggler would be INSANE -- and it wouldn't cover domestic operations, such as labs not dependent on opiates), investigations are difficult (other countries, such as Mexico, aren't too fond of US DEA agents operating there... national sovereignty and all that. This is problematic when many local of the officals screaming national sovereignty aren't going to do much because they're taking money from the cartels); and the distribution system is firmly in place.
Sure, you can take down individual dealers. But the money's good enough that more will probably take their place...
Giving political contributions is a form of free expression. It was judged that contribution limits were legal as long as they were intended to deter political corruption, but it's still considered speech.
...businesses fleeing to the UK, constant strikes from major sectors of the economy, lowering the work week simply because unemployment is just so darn high and otherwise there's just not enough work to go around...
It's not due to the lack of law on free speech -- it's because of the elastic clause, really.
That little bit ensures that the Federal Government has the power to pass laws that are necessary and proper. This, traditionally, has been interpreted to mean that "reasonable" restrictions upon the rights granted by the Amendments are permissible; for instance, perjury is prohibited as it's impossible to have a meaningful judicial system without such a prohibition. On the other hand, they can't, oh, just up and bar civillians from insulting the President, as the Supreme Court looks rather carefully at content-conscious restrictions on the Amendments -- it's easier to ban overly large signs on roadsides, than it is to ban specifically Klan signs on roadsides...
Wealth != income. Wealth involves the summation of income less summation of expenditures.
Take 100 different people, and pay them the exact same amount for 20 years. At the end, they will NOT have the same wealth; some will have squandered it, while others will have been frugal.
Likewise, Mr. Gates could retire, decline all pensions, and decline ALL forms of income -- but he would still be immensely wealthy by any measure. Alternately, a person making $10 million a year could waste it on a myriad of vices, and end up quite poor.
Many of the rich got there because they spent their money wisely, avoiding frivolities like eating out multiple times a week, buying cars every couple of years, or seeing _Titanic_ a half-dozen times in theatres. Just because a person has a clue and opts NOT to spend ridiculous amounts of money is no reason to penalize him, or to expect him to pay higher taxes.
Some brokers will penalize you via significantly higher commission for buying an odd lot -- that is, not a multiple of 100 shares. This could be an issue if, say, you're considering giving a gift of stock to a kid to get him interested in personal finance early, but you're NOT interested in giving him that much money to risk until he's learned a fair bit. 100 shares of FooBar at 150 would be a much riskier gift than 100 shares at 75, say.
C'mon. People buy into them so they can PAY LESS; do they really expect to lose nothing for this?
How, prithee tell, is an HMO going to -- with its overhead -- cut overall costs, when not supported by Gov't price controls, of a service that people need (demand for heart surgery is relatively inelastic, I'd think...), if it retains the same see-anybody-for-anything modality that pushed up fee-for-service costs in the first place? You don't get somethin' for nothing, and people who need treatment aren't exactly in the best negotiating position regardless of whether they're in a collective. Not when it's needed, and not when people demand the most expensive, latest but not necessarily greatest drugs and services available. (All those damn "Talk to your doctor about Foobaraxx" ads...).
Now, of course, they HAVE to spend money lobbying, because certain legislators have been pushing the idea that you are in fact entitled to get something for nothing, and then suggesting that you should be able to sue for what would seem to be a necessity of the business. If you pay less, and yet you're paying more people (overhead), costs have to be cut somewhere. That's life.
Does society not matter to you at all? Abstract freedoms, say? Do you care about the Constitution -- which the candidates, essentially, differ regarding their interpretations thereof?
Do you support the Federal government handing out money with specific instructions on how to use it, or would you prefer block grants?
Do you believe that the poor should be subsidized should they wish to leave the public school system? Even if that means they might opt for parochial schools?
Do you intend to live long enough to retire? Then Social Security should matter, as would Medicare/Medicaid.
Would you mind if an industry were subjected to price controls -- the logical extension of guaranteed drug coverage for a large population? And if this precedent extended towards other goods and services?
You could always add a write-in, even a bogus one simply to reduce the percentage of votes garnered by the winner.
Or, for next time, try to persuade somebody else to run if there is somebody whom you think deserves the seat (or at least, more so than anybody else who's liable to run)...
Quartering troops in the homes of known dissidents might be an effective intimidation tactic if it were allowed. The implicit threat would be VERY clear.
As for the Tenth, the Congress and President know damn well when they violate it; they just don't care, when trying scores political points even when the Supreme Court shoots 'em down. The question should be whether the voters care about it -- and I'd guess that the answer is no.
I wonder if it'd be easier/faster to 'chattr +i' certain critical files like/bin/login and then add logging code to the appropriate syscall to warn you when somebody changes it back. Changing the immutable attribute should be a pretty rare occasion, and would probably be necessary for tampering unless the attacker bypasses the usual filesystem syscalls and starts directly fiddling with disk blocks.
Last I recall (circa version 1.3 or so), its sole purpose was to act as a system for generating and verifying checksums for system binaries, configuration files and their ilk. Generate sums with intact system, move to a not-easily-tampered-with medium (say, CD-R if you're paranoid, floppy followed by write-protect if you're not), and check against 'em later if your system is compromised or you otherwise feel a need to verify your files. Nothing more.
It cannot even be used as a tool for, let alone have a primary (stated or unstated) purpose of, gaining unauthorized access to a system any more than any other one-way hashing system, unless distributed on a sharpened, magical CD with the strange unerring accuracy of Xena's chakram and you go sysadmin-hunting.
Slashdot Mirror
My gut feeling is that Bush, Gore, and so forth worry a bit about the slippery slope. Suppose one, say, gives same-sex marriages (or civil unions, if a diction compromise is necessary) full status.
How about simply 'committed partners', who cohabit and have a similar relationship? How about arrangements were people cohabit? Or threesomes -- if marriage isn't involved, it's not bigamy...
What would matter would be the paperwork -- after all, the Gov't isn't involved in defining the religious or social aspects of marriage, but merely establishing matters of record and seeing to it that one credited by one state is valid in all. If you establish the precedent that a simple ceremony for a same-sex partnership is valid and can be entered, then it seems unclear that ANY partnership, maybe including those that involve more than two people (as long as it's not called marriage) should be credited as well, and extended the same benefits.
Which suggests perhaps that the legal status of marriage MAY be ill-founded and should be abolished (replaced with stronger laws governing rights and responsibility of the custodians of children, perhaps) but that is an argument that I doubt any major candidate would DARE to make because of the number of privileges and responsibilities normally accorded to marriages (even childless ones).
Hrm. My first guess would be 'ever' -- have they ever tried that drug (i.e. in their lifetime, have they ever used it), even once. Not too many other rational explanations I'd think, as he lacks a time machine to project into the future (as in 'of today's 10th graders, X% will use cocaine throughout the rest of their life' or whatever).
My NYT Almanac notes that in 1998, unemployment in Finland reached 12%. GDP, $20,100 per capita, estimate for the same year. For the US, figures for the same year were 4.9% and $31,500, respectively.
Your social safety net is HURTING the masses. It's not a coincidence that unemployment in Europe tends to be higher, and per capita productivity lower. How's the unemployment in the former DDR, nowadays? Or, say, France -- what, 11.5% in 1998, I see? Guess they should reduce the workweek AGAIN, just to create more jobs... oh, and disallow employers from cutting salaries to compensate, of course.
Huge social safety nets drastically increase the number of people who'll need them.
Hagelin #9 sounded very, very New Agey to me. Which is more than slightly strange, considering that one would think most physicists would be a touch more skeptical...
Um, no, you're wrong.
Greenspan DID state that deficit reduction would be best. However, he then acknowledged that this was very unlikely -- Congressmen are not known for fiscal restraint when constituencies come a-bayin' -- and then stated that given the nearly inevitable choice between tax cuts or government programs, he would prefer tax cuts.
Ex-Surgeon General Joceyln Elders also had a MASSIVE conflict of interest there; her son had been arrested for drug possession. It would be silly to point out that this might easily have influenced her viewpoint, considering that she was in favor of cracking down on 'baccy.
FWIW, Pennsylvania's Attorney General apparently thinks drug enforcement is still popular in his state; he's been running ads touting his intrastate war on drugs. Then again, I've never seen a mention of ANY opponent yet, so the election may well be his to discard at will...
Which means only that neither Congress, nor any State (later amendment -- 14th IIRC) can pass a law that establishes a state religion.
It does NOT trivially translate into, say, banning a student-led prayer at school, which could be argued as a USE of the 1st Amendment; for a State to ban religious expression by students would be problematic in light of Constitutional protections for religious freedom, free assembly and free speech.
Comprende?
Think 'nearest-neighbor' search. I wouldn't be surprised if this were a prepared answer for the church-and-state question, given that the GOP is regularly accused of being controlled by right-wing Christians.
Didn't we get them the last time the Internet was cleaned? Gosh, darn it!
:-)
Maybe the metaphor needs to be broadened. We've already got hundreds (well, probably) of Sodoms and Gomorrahs online, ready to be terminally DOSed by yahweh@heaven.org...
One hopes you controlled for socio-economic status, as well... the poor have a BIT more incentive to commit crime.
Um, Napster is simultaneously promising to implement capabilities that in court they testified that they don't have -- namely, to monitor the transfers themselves, in order to determine which MP3s are transferred when.
Perhaps the Court will be interested to learn why, if they now claim that it's possible when they had been arguing they could not, they should have ANY credibility, or shouldn't be nailed for massive amounts of negligence in the design of their system.
Arguably, to demand. An awful lot of people are willing to pay awful lots of money to procure drugs. That's one heck of an incentive.
Apparently, it's very profitable to synthesize and smuggle drugs; borders are pretty porous (the level of manpower needed to stop and search every potential drug smuggler would be INSANE -- and it wouldn't cover domestic operations, such as labs not dependent on opiates), investigations are difficult (other countries, such as Mexico, aren't too fond of US DEA agents operating there... national sovereignty and all that. This is problematic when many local of the officals screaming national sovereignty aren't going to do much because they're taking money from the cartels); and the distribution system is firmly in place.
Sure, you can take down individual dealers. But the money's good enough that more will probably take their place...
1976, Buckley v. Vallejo.
Giving political contributions is a form of free expression. It was judged that contribution limits were legal as long as they were intended to deter political corruption, but it's still considered speech.
...businesses fleeing to the UK, constant strikes from major sectors of the economy, lowering the work week simply because unemployment is just so darn high and otherwise there's just not enough work to go around...
It's not due to the lack of law on free speech -- it's because of the elastic clause, really.
That little bit ensures that the Federal Government has the power to pass laws that are necessary and proper. This, traditionally, has been interpreted to mean that "reasonable" restrictions upon the rights granted by the Amendments are permissible; for instance, perjury is prohibited as it's impossible to have a meaningful judicial system without such a prohibition. On the other hand, they can't, oh, just up and bar civillians from insulting the President, as the Supreme Court looks rather carefully at content-conscious restrictions on the Amendments -- it's easier to ban overly large signs on roadsides, than it is to ban specifically Klan signs on roadsides...
Your logic is, frankly, bunk.
Wealth != income. Wealth involves the summation of income less summation of expenditures.
Take 100 different people, and pay them the exact same amount for 20 years. At the end, they will NOT have the same wealth; some will have squandered it, while others will have been frugal.
Likewise, Mr. Gates could retire, decline all pensions, and decline ALL forms of income -- but he would still be immensely wealthy by any measure. Alternately, a person making $10 million a year could waste it on a myriad of vices, and end up quite poor.
Many of the rich got there because they spent their money wisely, avoiding frivolities like eating out multiple times a week, buying cars every couple of years, or seeing _Titanic_ a half-dozen times in theatres. Just because a person has a clue and opts NOT to spend ridiculous amounts of money is no reason to penalize him, or to expect him to pay higher taxes.
Some brokers will penalize you via significantly higher commission for buying an odd lot -- that is, not a multiple of 100 shares. This could be an issue if, say, you're considering giving a gift of stock to a kid to get him interested in personal finance early, but you're NOT interested in giving him that much money to risk until he's learned a fair bit. 100 shares of FooBar at 150 would be a much riskier gift than 100 shares at 75, say.
If you're a male within a certain wide age range, or you're a female and in the Guard, you're a member of the militia. Period.
Read the Militia Acts and search the US Code for details. It's very, very specific.
A 20"-inch flatscreen on every desk and a Visor in every pocket, perhaps? Not quite as catchy as the original, alas. =)
Of course HMOs need to cut care.
C'mon. People buy into them so they can PAY LESS; do they really expect to lose nothing for this?
How, prithee tell, is an HMO going to -- with its overhead -- cut overall costs, when not supported by Gov't price controls, of a service that people need (demand for heart surgery is relatively inelastic, I'd think...), if it retains the same see-anybody-for-anything modality that pushed up fee-for-service costs in the first place? You don't get somethin' for nothing, and people who need treatment aren't exactly in the best negotiating position regardless of whether they're in a collective. Not when it's needed, and not when people demand the most expensive, latest but not necessarily greatest drugs and services available. (All those damn "Talk to your doctor about Foobaraxx" ads...).
Now, of course, they HAVE to spend money lobbying, because certain legislators have been pushing the idea that you are in fact entitled to get something for nothing, and then suggesting that you should be able to sue for what would seem to be a necessity of the business. If you pay less, and yet you're paying more people (overhead), costs have to be cut somewhere. That's life.
Does society not matter to you at all? Abstract freedoms, say? Do you care about the Constitution -- which the candidates, essentially, differ regarding their interpretations thereof?
Do you support the Federal government handing out money with specific instructions on how to use it, or would you prefer block grants?
Do you believe that the poor should be subsidized should they wish to leave the public school system? Even if that means they might opt for parochial schools?
Do you intend to live long enough to retire? Then Social Security should matter, as would Medicare/Medicaid.
Would you mind if an industry were subjected to price controls -- the logical extension of guaranteed drug coverage for a large population? And if this precedent extended towards other goods and services?
You could always add a write-in, even a bogus one simply to reduce the percentage of votes garnered by the winner.
Or, for next time, try to persuade somebody else to run if there is somebody whom you think deserves the seat (or at least, more so than anybody else who's liable to run)...
Quartering troops in the homes of known dissidents might be an effective intimidation tactic if it were allowed. The implicit threat would be VERY clear.
As for the Tenth, the Congress and President know damn well when they violate it; they just don't care, when trying scores political points even when the Supreme Court shoots 'em down. The question should be whether the voters care about it -- and I'd guess that the answer is no.
I wonder if it'd be easier/faster to 'chattr +i' certain critical files like /bin/login and then add logging code to the appropriate syscall to warn you when somebody changes it back. Changing the immutable attribute should be a pretty rare occasion, and would probably be necessary for tampering unless the attacker bypasses the usual filesystem syscalls and starts directly fiddling with disk blocks.
Er, why?
Last I recall (circa version 1.3 or so), its sole purpose was to act as a system for generating and verifying checksums for system binaries, configuration files and their ilk. Generate sums with intact system, move to a not-easily-tampered-with medium (say, CD-R if you're paranoid, floppy followed by write-protect if you're not), and check against 'em later if your system is compromised or you otherwise feel a need to verify your files. Nothing more.
It cannot even be used as a tool for, let alone have a primary (stated or unstated) purpose of, gaining unauthorized access to a system any more than any other one-way hashing system, unless distributed on a sharpened, magical CD with the strange unerring accuracy of Xena's chakram and you go sysadmin-hunting.