Trickle down economics has been thoroughly debunked? When did this happen? I see people attempting to do it but they always fail fast. Perhaps you can point me to something that doesn't disolve into some liberal ranting for reference?
All that cutting taxes does is continue to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich,
This is a down right lie. The wealth is already distributed before any taxes are involved. What cutting taxes does do it make less profitable ventures more attractive which in turn creates more economic growth which in turn creates more job opportunities. The government can't do that unless it does so by lowering taxes. And lets be clear here, it needs to be the right taxes too. Capitol gains taxes does little other then cause increase trading of existing contracts for the most part. It needs to be income taxes and costs of doing business taxes or fees.
It's a double whammy of the rich paying less into the commonwealth and cutting services to the very people who need them the most.
No, the growth spurred by decreased taxes *outside of something like capitol gains taxes, generally grows the tax base which increases tax revenue by proxy. It's the old adage of scale, would you like to sell 100 units at full profit or 1000 units at half profit. In case you are confused by that, lets say the profit is $10. So 100 units making $10 means a profit of $1000. But 1000 units at half that, it $5000 (1000 times half of 10 or $5).
Now capitol gains tax cuts have the short term effect of increasing taxes but only by a limited amount of time. It causes the trading of holdings that wouldn't otherwise have been profitable in which tax gets paid on it. Without the cuts, the taxes would have been paid later in date so it consolidates future payments at lower rates to sooner times. However, once that boom is over, the only other benefit is mostly more frequent payments of a lot less tax which doesn't seem to create more.
I supported Bush after all that because it wasn't nearly as bad as you idiots made it out to be. To me, it appeared like Bush was just the fat kid on the school playground and you idiots were making fun of him to suit your own special needs.
And even his incompetence wasn't nearly as Bad as President Carter's incompetence when in office and you same people have made some sort of hero out of him. How in the fuck is anyone supposed to take criticism seriously when you promote Carter as the best leader of the time. Every Idiot I have met who thinks that seems to be either not born when he was president or so young that he can't remember. So for all intends and purposes, most of the shit spouted by Bush was canceled by the shear appearance of political trickery and blind ignorance of the presenters.
Unions contracts that practically make it impossible to fire someone for job performance who isn't a political appointee or working in a politically appointed office and quotas that don't look for qualified people that are instead more worried about filling the spot with the X percentage required by law.
And yes, this boils down to bad management. Both in the past and present.
You really are insane. Giving someone a license to post, then changing the law, letting them know that revokes their license to post, then prosecuting them for further posts after the law changed is not, in any way, similar to prosecuting someone for a post made before the law change.
Either you do not know the facts or you are purposely attempting to be retarded just to keep this nonsense up. Power generation facilities have a permit to operate that goes well into the future, in the context we were discussing, it's not informing them the law has changed then prosecuting them, it's saying they can do something for X years then attempting to prosecute them by not honoring those X years terms. They meet the requirements and got the permit yesterday, just like posting yesterday would be. Making it illegal today would be like that post still existing therefore you getting prosecuted for it because the law changed today. If they are still operating on their still valid permits, it's post facto to change it mid stream on them plain and simple.
That you are unable to see a difference indicates your dogma ate your sanity. They aren't prosecuting them for making a plant. They aren't prosecuting them for possessing a plant. They are prosecuting them for making illegal pollution from it. If they shut it down, they aren't in violation of the law. And they aren't being prosecuted for anything they ever did in the past. They are only prosecuted for something they do in the future (i.e. operate a polluting plant).
Now I know you are being stupid on purpose. The pollution cannot be illegal because it was certified to be legal at the time the permit was issued and changing it to being illegal is an after the fact law that can't be applied constitutionally.
Why would they shut it down for? They have a permit signed by the government stating it is legal to operate it for the intended purposes and within the pollution limits when it was designed and built. You are trying to say the equivalent of you can keep your 5 year old car as long as you don't drive it because the emissions standards have changed. We both know that won't fly so stop pretending otherwise.
I think you are wrong. There is nothing stopping them from doing so, and in fact they do enforce that on things like sales. So when the code changes, you are expected to modify the building to meet code to transfer ownership, or tear it down. It's usually not enforced by law, though, but by lenders and insurance companies who won't lend against something that doesn't meet code at the time of the loan, or insure something that didn't meet code when you acquired it. But there are places where codes must be met by law. They usually don't change codes in a manner that require the current owner make current changes, but they can and have.
You are introducing concepts here that aren't in play. If the power station is up and running, they won't be taking loans out on it unless it's to do the upgrade or something. Anyways, look at it more like this, even in states with E-check laws, if you buy a car today and they change the emissions standards tomorrow, they do not make you retrofit the car to meet the new standards. Instead, they grandfather it in because applying a law created today to something made yesterday is after the fact and if no different then making it illegal to post on slashdot then prosecuting you for your posts before it became illegal.
Everybody wants something different. This is why there needs to be a separation of ownership in the government.
This country wasn't founded by the right to rule like England or the English empire and so on. What we had were basically territories that because countries when they banded together to boot England out. These 13 colonies or territories of England then became states as in countries in their own right. Knowing that each state would be at a severe disadvantage, they banded together once again and sold out limited parts of their sovereignty to a central authority constituted by three branches of government that operated as a republic and only one of them was originally directly elected by the people which is how we became a representative democracy. This government's primary goal was to act as a single head of state for the colonies which is why the state department deals with foreign affairs and not domestic affairs. Another goal of the new government was to be in charge of interactions between the states so none of them could band together to discriminate against one of them. They also directed or legislated matters concerning interstate commerce in much the same way.
Originally, senators were picked by the state's legislatures, the same picked electoral college representatives (but was left to the state to determine how which is where public voting for them eventually came into play), and finally, a massive body of legislatures elected directly by the people to keep the government in check. This is also why tax raised must originate in the house- it would be commissioned by the representatives of the people before going to the other branches of government. You see, the idea wasn't the people were smart or needed to be in charge, it was that the people could override the states and the government interacting with them.
Now the of the people, by the people, and for the people, doesn't really mean you are the boss. It's meaning is this, Of the people: the government is constituted by the citizens of the country instead of a king or foreign national with their homeland's interest at heart. By the people means that we give consent to the government by the constitution that creates it and bounds it's authority. The we the people can either influence it, run for office and become part of it, and so on. and for the people means that the government's actions are for the citizens living in the US not the citizens of England or the East India tea company or so on. It's not really supposed to mean that the government is going to work to get you a new car or your wife a new Sunday dress.
Now I say this not to piss you off, but to stop this endless cycle of everyone getting pissed off because the government doesn't do what they want or does directly what they don't want. This entire problem has been exaggerated by the parties backing the candidates for office which somewhat tear the entire for the people, by the people stuff up.
Throwing low-emission vehicles into the mix at least serves to somewhat decrease their uselessness.
And at the same time, it creates an incentive not to fix the highway problems that lead to congestion in the first place. I mean seriously, if the goal of tacking environmental concerns onto the HOV lanes is to promote usefulness, then why would they want that to ever disappear? And that's sort of an oxymoron because the unused HOV lanes save less environmental pollutants then what are created by the increased congestion.
All HOV lanes should be converted into express lanes that bypass all the exists and ramps that cause the congestion anyways.
They even had microphones that would transmit to a certain radio station. However, those devices were licensed and certified for a particular consumer use. It wasn't that you didn't need a license, it's that the device used a specific channel set aside for something like that.
That's 100% false. They were allowed to pollute to level X yesterday, and now they are not allowed to pollute past the tighter standard level Y. They won't ever be prosecuted for what they did yesterday, so it isn't an ex post facto law. At best, your Constitutional argument is that it is a takings and that the government should refund the prorated cost of the previous permit that is no longer valid. It is not an ex post facto law to change a regulation or law and apply it going forward. It doesn't matter if permits have been issued. The law trumps contracts, and permits are just contracts between people and the government.
Maybe you should spend some time learning what post facto and ex post facto means. Your right in that they were allowed one thing at one time and another at another time, the problem you seem to be ignoring is that they have a permit to operate at X levels and it doesn't say "until we change our minds". In fact, the permit says they building is certified under the laws and regulations in place at the time of operation and it allowed to operate for the expected life time of the building. This lifetime is generally 20-50 years depending on what type of operation it is. This means that any deviation from X standards has to allow X standards to be grandfathered in during the duration of the valid permit else it's running into constitutional problems.
And No, you can't revoke a valid permit because you are passing a new law or tighter regulation. That is the exact same thing as enforcing a post facto law which is forbidden by the constitution. This is the same concept as you building a house that meets code today, then when the code changes in 2 years, expecting you to tear the 100k+ investment down and meeting the new building codes. That doesn't happen in real life, you get grandfathered in because of the post facto thing.
Yes. When regulations weren't present, workers died on a daily basis doing relatively safe things (and much more often at the unsafe things). It was the regulations that prevented deaths. And I have no psychosis that leads me to think that if I do the same thing again I'll get the opposite result.
Ok, now I know you are just batshit crazy. There is a regulation requiring minors employed to have a break after 3 or 4 hours and not working more then 6 hours a day on a school night. What in the hell is going to cause a working to die in a fast food joint where the teen is flipping burgers or asking if you want fries with that.
IF you were paying attention, I am not talking about all regulations, It's the over regulation and BS that simply does nothing besides complicate the situation. But hey, I guess without all the wash your hands after picking your nose regulations in place, workers would die everywhere right. Get real.
That I do agree with. There are many cases where the current implementation is grandfathered, and the upgrade to current standards is unfeasible. Yet it's illegal to improve the existing item because any adjustments at all would nullify the grandfathering and make it subject to the impossible current standards. Small bridges over streams run into this problem all the time. As to some pollution controls like you mention. There should be some allowance for improving something without having to fully meet the current standard if the change is a net benefit towards becoming safer/better.
Finally, something we agree on. However, I would like to point out that common sense and practical regulation instead of excessive regulation is what I was promoting all along. Maybe we agree on more then is apparent.
He supposedly has already contacted the owners of the site. The DMCA wouldn't be directed to the owners of the site who are ignoring him, it would be directed to their provider who's services are facilitating the infringement. If the site owner is the ISP, then it's refusal to take down the content could cause them to lose any safe harbor provision they might otherwise have enjoyed. HE could erroneously send the site a take down notice and use their failure to comply and/or response as evidence in any future actions if it goes that far.
But in order for the ISP hosting the site to remain non-liable for it, they will have to take it down and then only put it back up if the site owner claims a right to the copyrighted work. But then if the site claims a right, that is available as evidence too.
I don't want to bring up that pesky constitution but wasn't there something about government of the people, by the people and for the people?
I guess it's a good thing that you didn't bring up that "pesky constitution" then. Because that "something about government of the people, by the people and for the people" is nowhere near it. Those are words come from Lincoln's Gettysburg address almost 100 years after the constitution was around and don't mean what you think they mean.
People like you scare me, but I guess your moniker "sumdumass" probably says it all.
It's sad that people like me scare you. I only attempt to educate you on things that you either don't understand, haven't taken the time to try, it is simply too complicated for you to understand. I mean I actually knew where those words come from and you perfectly illustrated my point that some people don't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to their own government, how it operates, how it was designed, or the history of their country. Did you actually believe that "of the people, by the people and for the people" was somewhere in the constitution? I know it's hard to memorize with it changing all the time and all.
Buy hey, if my moniker says it all, then what does that actually tell you?
I don't think the argument was "people are dumb and should pay for getting scammed". It's more like they have to show they were harmed and something wasn't delivered or wrong with the transaction.
I agree with the later because as the op pointed out, there is potential for abuse. You should have to present a case of why or how you were scammed before getting the charge back. This case can probably be made easier if a record of charge backs are kept but it's probably a lot like Spam in which they change companies and/or company names often. And no, just because the product wasn't fit for the advertised service isn't a reason for a charge back if you received the product. You don't get a charge back when the diet pills or ab launcher on late night TV fails to make you lose weight or tone your abs. Other laws typically get brought about before the charge back is issued.
What if they decide to start charging a yearly fee for their pacemaker software? What if they refuse to provide critical software updates unless I fork over more money to them?
In a medical device that it required to be tested and certified, they couldn't use the exception that it's not intended for be fit for a particular use nor could they get it certified if it stopped functioning before the allotted time span for any reason.
What you would have if they attempted to apply either of those is a device that never makes it to market legally or an obvious warranty issue that would be backed by a medical malpractice issue because of the critical update and not being addressed by the testing and certification process.
You cannot compare medical software on critical devices like a pacemaker with your windows powered laptop or your Linux converted desktop. Neither of the two have the same requirements and/or liability expectations as a medical device. It's not even the same as say an Xray or MRI machine being inoperative until you give payment or risk the guy in ICU capturing the images with his android phone. You have a lot better position of leverage when the device was purchased with the idea of keeping you alive because the FDA allowed them to make that claim.
Government in a democracy gain their authority by the consent of the governed. It's only obviously logical that the governed should be inspected by the governed when working in the official capacity of the government. This is the same line of reasoning that made sunshine laws so prevalent in the US and why most of them have automatic invalidation of certain laws if the sunshine laws are not respected. This logic is transparently transferable to recording public officials in their public capacity while in the public.
Monsanto sits on highway 3 in Illinois. You HAVE to drive past to get to St Louis from several towns. The problem was actually breathing as you drove past; the air literally burned your lungs.
Your smokestack example is an example of underregulation, not overregulation. The factory owner is NOT going to upgrade his exhaust stacks unless he's made to; there's no money in upgrading his stacks until they're almost nonoperational. If he's spewing too much poison, he should be made to upgrade his stacks. If he can't afford it, tough shit. Companies go out of business all the time for a lot of reasons.
I don't think you read what I said properly. First, I agreed that proper regulation is ok, it's the over regulation that stops an incremental upgrade of a smoke stack that it bullshit. ANd no, it's not under regulation because requiring them to apply new standards before the of the existing permit would be an ex post facto law and it expressly forbidden in the constituion. In other words, they cannot do it which is why there are terms like Grandfathered in. the example I gave was where the site was perfectly legal at the time the permits for operation were issued and the laws have changed to identify new pollutants in which he wouldn't have to abide by because of the post facto thing.
In this case, there is actually an incentive for him to not upgrade his stack because he is put at a competitive advantage by regulations which new facilities will have to comply with. Of course the answer is not to get rid of the regulation, but to change it to which he can incrementally upgrade and so that the burden on new facilities doesn't create a regulatory advantage for doing nothing. If the goal is to reduce pollution, and the pollution has been identified, then why keep it the way it is other then to protect the existing players?
The regs you cited sound reasonable to me. Just because Chinese factories can kill its workers with impunity we should be able to, too? Bullshit. Everyone deserves safe working conditions, and that you seem to think otherwise is appalling.
Who said anything about killing workers? I mean do you really think that if a regulation isn't present, workers will start dying overnight? The problem isn't regulation, it's over regulations. Over regulation indicates a regulation that isn't needed for the safety of the workers or environment or public in general. It's just a hurdle to competition and has the effect of benefiting the existing companies and those already with tone of money to jump through the loopholes.
That wasn't a matter of overregulation, it was a matter of how the school board reacted to its overlooking of the regulation that said the damned thing should meet code. And I'll bet the extra driver per bus cost way less than the lawsuit that must certainly have happened, as school bus drivers are woefully underpaid. Had they followed the regulations to begin with and secured the goddamn railing that was required by regulation to be secure the problem wouldn't have happened.
Lol.. Are you purposely ignoring things to be confrontational? They reacted by making more regulations to compensate for regulations not being followed. That's over regulation. Over regulation is in essence regulation that is in excess of what is needed. The thing is, in all situations, what was needed was that someone follow the regulations or none of it would have worked. And of course if you followed the regulation, then to original incident sparking the reaction wouldn't have happened.
And no, in the state of Ohio, the buses and drivers are immune to lawsuits unless their actions were purposely malicious. Carelessness and recklessness wouldn't have been enough to supersede the requirement. And yes, you need permission to sue a government entity in the US because of the sovereign authority inherent in government. So you either need a law or constitutional right that allows the suit to continue or an act of legislation that allows it specifically.
Actually, it's both and all of the above and 100% right.
It's true that the government derives it's power from the people, but nothing in any constitution granting the governments their power does it mention that it has to serve the people. In fact, traditionally government serves what it governs which is so much more then the people that most constitutions specifically state what the government is allowed or required to do and specifically restricted from doing.
It would take You as in plural to the sum of enough people to amend the constitutions of the states and federal government in order to make the statement false. That's not going to happen any time soon.
In a working direct democracy, the government cannot pass legislation that'll piss a majority of the people off. Unfortunately, and that's not even limited to the US of A, a lot of people are amazingly stupid. But to get back to your examples:
Actually they can and do pass legislation that pisses the majority off all the time. Take the recent health care bill in the US for example, if you divide the country in to two segments, supporting and not supporting, then you can further divide each segment into two more groups, doing too much or not doing enough, indifference, and just right. If the first segment was 50/50, then about 30% of each are indifferent with probably 10% supporting or finding something they liked (you can reverse that but it seems to be the general feel of the issue) while the other 70% of each group either didn't think it did enough or that is did too much. That would translate to about 70% or the people not support the health care bill as passed but because the point of disagreement (remember the divide and conquer) is completely opposite of each other and won't come together because of their positions, they are really counted as 35% or so.
Roads, schools, firemen and, well, every other public service need funding. If backed by valid reasons, few people will contest a tax hike.
What about them? The government already has a use tax that is supposed to pay for the roads if they actually spent it on them instead of diverting the money into other areas. Schools in the US are some of the dismal displays of public infrastructure around. Throwing more money at them appears to simply increase the problem while privately funded schools tend to be ranked among the top in the country and the world. Firemen? That's a local funding issue meant to be kept within the community it serves. Why would we need a tax hike for them, unless the area expands in which case the tax base does to and the problem is solved. The problem is that too many taxes are not backed by valid reasons and attempts to legitimize them turn into cronyism and/or payouts for campaign donations. Legitimate taxes for legitimate needs should be finded. But raising taxes to pay the higher salaries, are you serious? And no, this isn't limited to the US either, check your own backyard. And yes, at current exchange rates, that's about 435k US dollars. I bet your even more happier to pay your taxes now right?
You don't get convicted on a breathalyzer readout (not in Europe, anyways. The strange things you folks overseas do are, well, strange). You'll get taken to the nearest hospital, lose a couple drops of blood and with a bit of a delay you'll be on your way without a charge. Use an alcohol-free mouthwash before your next important appointment and you're good. And again, most people prefer a couple of mouthwash-related blood alcohol tests to hordes of drunk people in control (or lack thereof) of two tons of speeding metal each. Cars are dangerous. Operating dangerous machinery while drunk is deadly.
Lol.. Maybe you should look into what your saying before saying it. They can and do convict for a breathalyzer readout. Read up on Ketosis and Diabetes and the dangers of that. Wile it's true that in most jurisdictions, you can ask for a blood sample, it isn't always automatic. But that misses the point entirely. You seem to be the type of lutz who is more then happy to change your ways just because someone told you to. In free countries, most people aren't like that. The real problem is that the BAC levels are dropping to below points in which any danger from drinking is present. It's a money grab by the states and a
Not necessarily answerable. It's true that in a democracy, or even a republic pretending to be one, the government derives it's power from the consent of the governed, but it doesn't even need to retain the majority of consent once it's sufficiently large enough.
Modern government is pretty good at keeping most the pissed off people pissed at something different so they don't join forces and remove the consent. Even then, we saw how well that worked out for the south in the 1800's.
The government does pay them out of their own pocket. You pay taxes to the government which then spends the money however they like.
You don't believe me? Look at the highway funding or road use taxes that are applied to your fuel. It's supposed to go to funding road construction and repair right? In the past 20 years, I have seen it used to fund bike paths to parks that have no other value, It was diverted to fund a couple welfare programs from time to time, it has been used to build stadiums (the most recent one is the Main Street Bridge in Columbus Ohio that is designed to primarily be closed off during events and used as bleachers).
But hey, why focus on something as ambiguous as that, just take a look at the social security trust fund.
You should never call someone a moron when you have no clue about what you are talking about.
Even in dictatorships, a government employee is still a civil servant or public serant even though they serve the dictator and not the public.
The term public servant does not in any way mean serving the public. It comes from the greeks denoting the difference between jobs that existed in both the government sector and the private sector. A worker is a servant in the context to which public or civil servant is derived. Not until recent times and the destruction of the American education system has it ever been thought otherwise unless it was dramatized in some Hollywood production intending to make fun of someone (usually the person who just broke the law and was being carted off to jail).
The protect and serve thing on the police cars was dreamed up in the 1970-80's as a PR stunt to instill confidence in the police forces around major city after many officers were involved in corruption of various sorts (including racism) and lost the trust of the community. It was a play on the To serve and protect which has been around in the military and the justice system for years. What is left out by the PR stunt is the is that it's not you they protect and serve, it's the government, it's laws, and the office in which they represent.
You were told wrong. The government works for what they govern. While the citizens might be involved in that, they are only a portion of it.
It's more accurate to say that the government derives it's power from the consent of the people it governs. Well, in a democracy anyways. If you don't give consent, you have to either elect someone, yourself, or find someone already elected to the right offices who shares your opinion and can make the changes you request. But in any case, nothing bind them or yourself to that opinion other then the possibility of not being reelected.
Consumer safety and worker safety or environmental regulations can have the converse effect too. Suppose you have an existing power generating plant and want to update the exhaust stacks to trap some of the identified pollutants but can't afford to do a complete retrofit to meet the new regulations. Can you upgrade just part of it? No, you have to do all or nothing and because they can't pass a post facto law, then the design as it was approved last will be grandfathered in and nothing will be changed. However, this same problem makes it cheaper and less expensive to operate your existing plant and almost impossible for me to open one to compete. So knowing the power needs to be made, you are able to jack up the price a little, add to your existing platform without invalidating your previous permit, and now you rake in the big bucks by creating an artificial supply-demand problem.
But hey, as long as you can drive by Monsanto right?
And yes, I all for keeping workers safe and alive, however some of the regulation is just stupid. Consider a confined space entry, you have an opening 10 foot by 10 foot with a ramp leading to and from it but because it's below grade and 80% of the area is enclosed, it's a confined space entry that according to OSHA regulation requires a supervisor to be present at all times a worker enters the area, a hole watch for every 3 people entering the area, in some cases lanyards and possible breathing aid instruments not to mention the mountain of paperwork and recording and retention requirements. And this is after the air content levels are checked by meters that are required before entry to test for Co2 and Oxygen levels or the presence of explosive or flammable gases.
But hey, as long as you get your copper wire that is mostly recycled because it's too costly to mine in the US anymore right?
When someone says regulation that drives up costs, they aren't talking about the necessary and proper regulation, they are talking about the excessive and idiotic regulations that do little other then drive up costs.
Here is an example of an excessive regulation that ended up almost doubling the transportation costs of a school district in my state. This was after a child was exiting a bus and their book bag got caught on a piece of railing that was improperly installed and never should have pass inspection. The bus drove away dragging the student a couple hundred feet before the other kids alerted the driver about the situation. OF course if the driver would have checked his mirrors, he would have seen the issue long before that as they have mirrors the encircle the buss and are not allow to move until all the children are out of view on them. The solution to this wasn't retraining the drivers to ensure they operate by existing protocol and making sure the railings met state standards and that the buses were safe. NO, the solution was to require two driver per bus so one could do the work of looking in the mirrors instead of the one in the seat the mirrors were designed to be looked at from. And this isn't anything that a $5 per bus keyed brake lock (all buses had a push button emergency brake that needed to be pushed in to release) so the driver himself could safely walk around the bus in between stops and check for what he should have checked in the mirrors for. Yea, if you don't count supervisors and maintenance personnel, this one thing alone doubled the payroll for of the schools district's 200+ bus system.
I'm sure you will say "but hey, at least no more kids would be accidentally dragged alongside the bus" right? And it's worth the double payroll in taxes to have the excessive regulation that was implemented because the existing regulations not be followed.
Yes, very correct and I wasn't attempting to deny that.
I was attempting to explain that the claim wasn't video taping equals wiretap, it's that wiretap laws contain laws about recording which would cover video taping. I believe the kids were in their right and this enforcement of the law is little more then an attempt to deter others from doing the same while punishing someone unjustly.
I've always felt that once I've bought a device it's mine to do with as I please. If I want to disassemble it, format it, load a copy of CP/M on it or cut it in half with a skill saw, that's my business. But I certainly don't feel entitled to warranty support after I've gone out of the reasonable bounds of what the company expected me to do with the product.
This reminds me of a user who purchased a main board from me when I had my shop open to the public. It was about the time the AMD slot (not socket) A's were in fashion if that helps date it. He was demanding that I replace it because it was obviously defective. When I asked how, he said that when he was putting the memory in, he heard a zzzttsss noise. He said the screen went blank and it hasn't worked since (think about that). He said he was grounded and all and it shouldn't have done that.
Anyways, I told him I would attempt to help with the manufacturers warranty but I wasn't going to exchange it. I suggested he should have a different story when talking to them like "it never did anything at all" and "yes, I'm A+ certified and know what I'm doing". HE was pissed and couldn't figure out why I wouldn't let him return it to me, even after I pointed out that there was only the manufacturer's warranty for any parts you install yourself and showed him the sign right on the register where he paid for it stating that.
He wanted the rope, the ability to hang himself, then bring the rope back after he cut it down and exchange it for a new one. I think some people just don't think things through.
The funny thing is, when you place someone under citizens arrest, in most jurisdictions cops are specifically excluded and you are suppose to as soon as possible, remand them to the custody of the police.
So I assume the cop would either balk at you while he presses the officer down need assist button in his radio so his brother in blue take you down, or say, OK, I remand myself to myself and I will escort myself to the jail while you sit there in amazement and forget to file the complaint.
Slashdot Mirror
Trickle down economics has been thoroughly debunked? When did this happen? I see people attempting to do it but they always fail fast. Perhaps you can point me to something that doesn't disolve into some liberal ranting for reference?
This is a down right lie. The wealth is already distributed before any taxes are involved. What cutting taxes does do it make less profitable ventures more attractive which in turn creates more economic growth which in turn creates more job opportunities. The government can't do that unless it does so by lowering taxes. And lets be clear here, it needs to be the right taxes too. Capitol gains taxes does little other then cause increase trading of existing contracts for the most part. It needs to be income taxes and costs of doing business taxes or fees.
No, the growth spurred by decreased taxes *outside of something like capitol gains taxes, generally grows the tax base which increases tax revenue by proxy. It's the old adage of scale, would you like to sell 100 units at full profit or 1000 units at half profit. In case you are confused by that, lets say the profit is $10. So 100 units making $10 means a profit of $1000. But 1000 units at half that, it $5000 (1000 times half of 10 or $5).
Now capitol gains tax cuts have the short term effect of increasing taxes but only by a limited amount of time. It causes the trading of holdings that wouldn't otherwise have been profitable in which tax gets paid on it. Without the cuts, the taxes would have been paid later in date so it consolidates future payments at lower rates to sooner times. However, once that boom is over, the only other benefit is mostly more frequent payments of a lot less tax which doesn't seem to create more.
I supported Bush after all that because it wasn't nearly as bad as you idiots made it out to be. To me, it appeared like Bush was just the fat kid on the school playground and you idiots were making fun of him to suit your own special needs.
And even his incompetence wasn't nearly as Bad as President Carter's incompetence when in office and you same people have made some sort of hero out of him. How in the fuck is anyone supposed to take criticism seriously when you promote Carter as the best leader of the time. Every Idiot I have met who thinks that seems to be either not born when he was president or so young that he can't remember. So for all intends and purposes, most of the shit spouted by Bush was canceled by the shear appearance of political trickery and blind ignorance of the presenters.
Unions contracts that practically make it impossible to fire someone for job performance who isn't a political appointee or working in a politically appointed office and quotas that don't look for qualified people that are instead more worried about filling the spot with the X percentage required by law.
And yes, this boils down to bad management. Both in the past and present.
Either you do not know the facts or you are purposely attempting to be retarded just to keep this nonsense up. Power generation facilities have a permit to operate that goes well into the future, in the context we were discussing, it's not informing them the law has changed then prosecuting them, it's saying they can do something for X years then attempting to prosecute them by not honoring those X years terms. They meet the requirements and got the permit yesterday, just like posting yesterday would be. Making it illegal today would be like that post still existing therefore you getting prosecuted for it because the law changed today. If they are still operating on their still valid permits, it's post facto to change it mid stream on them plain and simple.
Now I know you are being stupid on purpose. The pollution cannot be illegal because it was certified to be legal at the time the permit was issued and changing it to being illegal is an after the fact law that can't be applied constitutionally.
Why would they shut it down for? They have a permit signed by the government stating it is legal to operate it for the intended purposes and within the pollution limits when it was designed and built. You are trying to say the equivalent of you can keep your 5 year old car as long as you don't drive it because the emissions standards have changed. We both know that won't fly so stop pretending otherwise.
You are introducing concepts here that aren't in play. If the power station is up and running, they won't be taking loans out on it unless it's to do the upgrade or something. Anyways, look at it more like this, even in states with E-check laws, if you buy a car today and they change the emissions standards tomorrow, they do not make you retrofit the car to meet the new standards. Instead, they grandfather it in because applying a law created today to something made yesterday is after the fact and if no different then making it illegal to post on slashdot then prosecuting you for your posts before it became illegal.
Everybody wants something different. This is why there needs to be a separation of ownership in the government.
This country wasn't founded by the right to rule like England or the English empire and so on. What we had were basically territories that because countries when they banded together to boot England out. These 13 colonies or territories of England then became states as in countries in their own right. Knowing that each state would be at a severe disadvantage, they banded together once again and sold out limited parts of their sovereignty to a central authority constituted by three branches of government that operated as a republic and only one of them was originally directly elected by the people which is how we became a representative democracy. This government's primary goal was to act as a single head of state for the colonies which is why the state department deals with foreign affairs and not domestic affairs. Another goal of the new government was to be in charge of interactions between the states so none of them could band together to discriminate against one of them. They also directed or legislated matters concerning interstate commerce in much the same way.
Originally, senators were picked by the state's legislatures, the same picked electoral college representatives (but was left to the state to determine how which is where public voting for them eventually came into play), and finally, a massive body of legislatures elected directly by the people to keep the government in check. This is also why tax raised must originate in the house- it would be commissioned by the representatives of the people before going to the other branches of government.
You see, the idea wasn't the people were smart or needed to be in charge, it was that the people could override the states and the government interacting with them.
Now the of the people, by the people, and for the people, doesn't really mean you are the boss. It's meaning is this, Of the people: the government is constituted by the citizens of the country instead of a king or foreign national with their homeland's interest at heart. By the people means that we give consent to the government by the constitution that creates it and bounds it's authority. The we the people can either influence it, run for office and become part of it, and so on. and for the people means that the government's actions are for the citizens living in the US not the citizens of England or the East India tea company or so on. It's not really supposed to mean that the government is going to work to get you a new car or your wife a new Sunday dress.
Now I say this not to piss you off, but to stop this endless cycle of everyone getting pissed off because the government doesn't do what they want or does directly what they don't want. This entire problem has been exaggerated by the parties backing the candidates for office which somewhat tear the entire for the people, by the people stuff up.
And at the same time, it creates an incentive not to fix the highway problems that lead to congestion in the first place. I mean seriously, if the goal of tacking environmental concerns onto the HOV lanes is to promote usefulness, then why would they want that to ever disappear? And that's sort of an oxymoron because the unused HOV lanes save less environmental pollutants then what are created by the increased congestion.
All HOV lanes should be converted into express lanes that bypass all the exists and ramps that cause the congestion anyways.
They even had microphones that would transmit to a certain radio station. However, those devices were licensed and certified for a particular consumer use. It wasn't that you didn't need a license, it's that the device used a specific channel set aside for something like that.
Maybe you should spend some time learning what post facto and ex post facto means. Your right in that they were allowed one thing at one time and another at another time, the problem you seem to be ignoring is that they have a permit to operate at X levels and it doesn't say "until we change our minds". In fact, the permit says they building is certified under the laws and regulations in place at the time of operation and it allowed to operate for the expected life time of the building. This lifetime is generally 20-50 years depending on what type of operation it is. This means that any deviation from X standards has to allow X standards to be grandfathered in during the duration of the valid permit else it's running into constitutional problems.
And No, you can't revoke a valid permit because you are passing a new law or tighter regulation. That is the exact same thing as enforcing a post facto law which is forbidden by the constitution. This is the same concept as you building a house that meets code today, then when the code changes in 2 years, expecting you to tear the 100k+ investment down and meeting the new building codes. That doesn't happen in real life, you get grandfathered in because of the post facto thing.
Ok, now I know you are just batshit crazy. There is a regulation requiring minors employed to have a break after 3 or 4 hours and not working more then 6 hours a day on a school night. What in the hell is going to cause a working to die in a fast food joint where the teen is flipping burgers or asking if you want fries with that.
IF you were paying attention, I am not talking about all regulations, It's the over regulation and BS that simply does nothing besides complicate the situation. But hey, I guess without all the wash your hands after picking your nose regulations in place, workers would die everywhere right. Get real.
Finally, something we agree on. However, I would like to point out that common sense and practical regulation instead of excessive regulation is what I was promoting all along. Maybe we agree on more then is apparent.
He supposedly has already contacted the owners of the site. The DMCA wouldn't be directed to the owners of the site who are ignoring him, it would be directed to their provider who's services are facilitating the infringement. If the site owner is the ISP, then it's refusal to take down the content could cause them to lose any safe harbor provision they might otherwise have enjoyed. HE could erroneously send the site a take down notice and use their failure to comply and/or response as evidence in any future actions if it goes that far.
But in order for the ISP hosting the site to remain non-liable for it, they will have to take it down and then only put it back up if the site owner claims a right to the copyrighted work. But then if the site claims a right, that is available as evidence too.
I guess it's a good thing that you didn't bring up that "pesky constitution" then. Because that "something about government of the people, by the people and for the people" is nowhere near it. Those are words come from Lincoln's Gettysburg address almost 100 years after the constitution was around and don't mean what you think they mean.
It's sad that people like me scare you. I only attempt to educate you on things that you either don't understand, haven't taken the time to try, it is simply too complicated for you to understand. I mean I actually knew where those words come from and you perfectly illustrated my point that some people don't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to their own government, how it operates, how it was designed, or the history of their country. Did you actually believe that "of the people, by the people and for the people" was somewhere in the constitution? I know it's hard to memorize with it changing all the time and all.
Buy hey, if my moniker says it all, then what does that actually tell you?
I don't think the argument was "people are dumb and should pay for getting scammed". It's more like they have to show they were harmed and something wasn't delivered or wrong with the transaction.
I agree with the later because as the op pointed out, there is potential for abuse. You should have to present a case of why or how you were scammed before getting the charge back. This case can probably be made easier if a record of charge backs are kept but it's probably a lot like Spam in which they change companies and/or company names often. And no, just because the product wasn't fit for the advertised service isn't a reason for a charge back if you received the product. You don't get a charge back when the diet pills or ab launcher on late night TV fails to make you lose weight or tone your abs. Other laws typically get brought about before the charge back is issued.
In a medical device that it required to be tested and certified, they couldn't use the exception that it's not intended for be fit for a particular use nor could they get it certified if it stopped functioning before the allotted time span for any reason.
What you would have if they attempted to apply either of those is a device that never makes it to market legally or an obvious warranty issue that would be backed by a medical malpractice issue because of the critical update and not being addressed by the testing and certification process.
You cannot compare medical software on critical devices like a pacemaker with your windows powered laptop or your Linux converted desktop. Neither of the two have the same requirements and/or liability expectations as a medical device. It's not even the same as say an Xray or MRI machine being inoperative until you give payment or risk the guy in ICU capturing the images with his android phone. You have a lot better position of leverage when the device was purchased with the idea of keeping you alive because the FDA allowed them to make that claim.
I can agree with that.
Government in a democracy gain their authority by the consent of the governed. It's only obviously logical that the governed should be inspected by the governed when working in the official capacity of the government. This is the same line of reasoning that made sunshine laws so prevalent in the US and why most of them have automatic invalidation of certain laws if the sunshine laws are not respected. This logic is transparently transferable to recording public officials in their public capacity while in the public.
I don't think you read what I said properly. First, I agreed that proper regulation is ok, it's the over regulation that stops an incremental upgrade of a smoke stack that it bullshit. ANd no, it's not under regulation because requiring them to apply new standards before the of the existing permit would be an ex post facto law and it expressly forbidden in the constituion. In other words, they cannot do it which is why there are terms like Grandfathered in. the example I gave was where the site was perfectly legal at the time the permits for operation were issued and the laws have changed to identify new pollutants in which he wouldn't have to abide by because of the post facto thing.
In this case, there is actually an incentive for him to not upgrade his stack because he is put at a competitive advantage by regulations which new facilities will have to comply with. Of course the answer is not to get rid of the regulation, but to change it to which he can incrementally upgrade and so that the burden on new facilities doesn't create a regulatory advantage for doing nothing. If the goal is to reduce pollution, and the pollution has been identified, then why keep it the way it is other then to protect the existing players?
Who said anything about killing workers? I mean do you really think that if a regulation isn't present, workers will start dying overnight? The problem isn't regulation, it's over regulations. Over regulation indicates a regulation that isn't needed for the safety of the workers or environment or public in general. It's just a hurdle to competition and has the effect of benefiting the existing companies and those already with tone of money to jump through the loopholes.
Lol.. Are you purposely ignoring things to be confrontational? They reacted by making more regulations to compensate for regulations not being followed. That's over regulation. Over regulation is in essence regulation that is in excess of what is needed. The thing is, in all situations, what was needed was that someone follow the regulations or none of it would have worked. And of course if you followed the regulation, then to original incident sparking the reaction wouldn't have happened.
And no, in the state of Ohio, the buses and drivers are immune to lawsuits unless their actions were purposely malicious. Carelessness and recklessness wouldn't have been enough to supersede the requirement. And yes, you need permission to sue a government entity in the US because of the sovereign authority inherent in government. So you either need a law or constitutional right that allows the suit to continue or an act of legislation that allows it specifically.
Actually, it's both and all of the above and 100% right.
It's true that the government derives it's power from the people, but nothing in any constitution granting the governments their power does it mention that it has to serve the people. In fact, traditionally government serves what it governs which is so much more then the people that most constitutions specifically state what the government is allowed or required to do and specifically restricted from doing.
It would take You as in plural to the sum of enough people to amend the constitutions of the states and federal government in order to make the statement false. That's not going to happen any time soon.
Actually they can and do pass legislation that pisses the majority off all the time. Take the recent health care bill in the US for example, if you divide the country in to two segments, supporting and not supporting, then you can further divide each segment into two more groups, doing too much or not doing enough, indifference, and just right. If the first segment was 50/50, then about 30% of each are indifferent with probably 10% supporting or finding something they liked (you can reverse that but it seems to be the general feel of the issue) while the other 70% of each group either didn't think it did enough or that is did too much. That would translate to about 70% or the people not support the health care bill as passed but because the point of disagreement (remember the divide and conquer) is completely opposite of each other and won't come together because of their positions, they are really counted as 35% or so.
What about them? The government already has a use tax that is supposed to pay for the roads if they actually spent it on them instead of diverting the money into other areas. Schools in the US are some of the dismal displays of public infrastructure around. Throwing more money at them appears to simply increase the problem while privately funded schools tend to be ranked among the top in the country and the world. Firemen? That's a local funding issue meant to be kept within the community it serves. Why would we need a tax hike for them, unless the area expands in which case the tax base does to and the problem is solved. The problem is that too many taxes are not backed by valid reasons and attempts to legitimize them turn into cronyism and/or payouts for campaign donations. Legitimate taxes for legitimate needs should be finded. But raising taxes to pay the higher salaries, are you serious? And no, this isn't limited to the US either, check your own backyard. And yes, at current exchange rates, that's about 435k US dollars. I bet your even more happier to pay your taxes now right?
Lol.. Maybe you should look into what your saying before saying it. They can and do convict for a breathalyzer readout. Read up on Ketosis and Diabetes and the dangers of that. Wile it's true that in most jurisdictions, you can ask for a blood sample, it isn't always automatic. But that misses the point entirely. You seem to be the type of lutz who is more then happy to change your ways just because someone told you to. In free countries, most people aren't like that. The real problem is that the BAC levels are dropping to below points in which any danger from drinking is present. It's a money grab by the states and a
Not necessarily answerable. It's true that in a democracy, or even a republic pretending to be one, the government derives it's power from the consent of the governed, but it doesn't even need to retain the majority of consent once it's sufficiently large enough.
Modern government is pretty good at keeping most the pissed off people pissed at something different so they don't join forces and remove the consent. Even then, we saw how well that worked out for the south in the 1800's.
The government does pay them out of their own pocket. You pay taxes to the government which then spends the money however they like.
You don't believe me? Look at the highway funding or road use taxes that are applied to your fuel. It's supposed to go to funding road construction and repair right? In the past 20 years, I have seen it used to fund bike paths to parks that have no other value, It was diverted to fund a couple welfare programs from time to time, it has been used to build stadiums (the most recent one is the Main Street Bridge in Columbus Ohio that is designed to primarily be closed off during events and used as bleachers).
But hey, why focus on something as ambiguous as that, just take a look at the social security trust fund.
You should never call someone a moron when you have no clue about what you are talking about.
Even in dictatorships, a government employee is still a civil servant or public serant even though they serve the dictator and not the public.
The term public servant does not in any way mean serving the public. It comes from the greeks denoting the difference between jobs that existed in both the government sector and the private sector. A worker is a servant in the context to which public or civil servant is derived. Not until recent times and the destruction of the American education system has it ever been thought otherwise unless it was dramatized in some Hollywood production intending to make fun of someone (usually the person who just broke the law and was being carted off to jail).
The protect and serve thing on the police cars was dreamed up in the 1970-80's as a PR stunt to instill confidence in the police forces around major city after many officers were involved in corruption of various sorts (including racism) and lost the trust of the community. It was a play on the To serve and protect which has been around in the military and the justice system for years. What is left out by the PR stunt is the is that it's not you they protect and serve, it's the government, it's laws, and the office in which they represent.
You were told wrong. The government works for what they govern. While the citizens might be involved in that, they are only a portion of it.
It's more accurate to say that the government derives it's power from the consent of the people it governs. Well, in a democracy anyways. If you don't give consent, you have to either elect someone, yourself, or find someone already elected to the right offices who shares your opinion and can make the changes you request. But in any case, nothing bind them or yourself to that opinion other then the possibility of not being reelected.
Consumer safety and worker safety or environmental regulations can have the converse effect too. Suppose you have an existing power generating plant and want to update the exhaust stacks to trap some of the identified pollutants but can't afford to do a complete retrofit to meet the new regulations. Can you upgrade just part of it? No, you have to do all or nothing and because they can't pass a post facto law, then the design as it was approved last will be grandfathered in and nothing will be changed. However, this same problem makes it cheaper and less expensive to operate your existing plant and almost impossible for me to open one to compete. So knowing the power needs to be made, you are able to jack up the price a little, add to your existing platform without invalidating your previous permit, and now you rake in the big bucks by creating an artificial supply-demand problem.
But hey, as long as you can drive by Monsanto right?
And yes, I all for keeping workers safe and alive, however some of the regulation is just stupid. Consider a confined space entry, you have an opening 10 foot by 10 foot with a ramp leading to and from it but because it's below grade and 80% of the area is enclosed, it's a confined space entry that according to OSHA regulation requires a supervisor to be present at all times a worker enters the area, a hole watch for every 3 people entering the area, in some cases lanyards and possible breathing aid instruments not to mention the mountain of paperwork and recording and retention requirements. And this is after the air content levels are checked by meters that are required before entry to test for Co2 and Oxygen levels or the presence of explosive or flammable gases.
But hey, as long as you get your copper wire that is mostly recycled because it's too costly to mine in the US anymore right?
When someone says regulation that drives up costs, they aren't talking about the necessary and proper regulation, they are talking about the excessive and idiotic regulations that do little other then drive up costs.
Here is an example of an excessive regulation that ended up almost doubling the transportation costs of a school district in my state. This was after a child was exiting a bus and their book bag got caught on a piece of railing that was improperly installed and never should have pass inspection. The bus drove away dragging the student a couple hundred feet before the other kids alerted the driver about the situation. OF course if the driver would have checked his mirrors, he would have seen the issue long before that as they have mirrors the encircle the buss and are not allow to move until all the children are out of view on them. The solution to this wasn't retraining the drivers to ensure they operate by existing protocol and making sure the railings met state standards and that the buses were safe. NO, the solution was to require two driver per bus so one could do the work of looking in the mirrors instead of the one in the seat the mirrors were designed to be looked at from. And this isn't anything that a $5 per bus keyed brake lock (all buses had a push button emergency brake that needed to be pushed in to release) so the driver himself could safely walk around the bus in between stops and check for what he should have checked in the mirrors for. Yea, if you don't count supervisors and maintenance personnel, this one thing alone doubled the payroll for of the schools district's 200+ bus system.
I'm sure you will say "but hey, at least no more kids would be accidentally dragged alongside the bus" right? And it's worth the double payroll in taxes to have the excessive regulation that was implemented because the existing regulations not be followed.
Yes, very correct and I wasn't attempting to deny that.
I was attempting to explain that the claim wasn't video taping equals wiretap, it's that wiretap laws contain laws about recording which would cover video taping. I believe the kids were in their right and this enforcement of the law is little more then an attempt to deter others from doing the same while punishing someone unjustly.
This reminds me of a user who purchased a main board from me when I had my shop open to the public. It was about the time the AMD slot (not socket) A's were in fashion if that helps date it. He was demanding that I replace it because it was obviously defective. When I asked how, he said that when he was putting the memory in, he heard a zzzttsss noise. He said the screen went blank and it hasn't worked since (think about that). He said he was grounded and all and it shouldn't have done that.
Anyways, I told him I would attempt to help with the manufacturers warranty but I wasn't going to exchange it. I suggested he should have a different story when talking to them like "it never did anything at all" and "yes, I'm A+ certified and know what I'm doing". HE was pissed and couldn't figure out why I wouldn't let him return it to me, even after I pointed out that there was only the manufacturer's warranty for any parts you install yourself and showed him the sign right on the register where he paid for it stating that.
He wanted the rope, the ability to hang himself, then bring the rope back after he cut it down and exchange it for a new one. I think some people just don't think things through.
The funny thing is, when you place someone under citizens arrest, in most jurisdictions cops are specifically excluded and you are suppose to as soon as possible, remand them to the custody of the police.
So I assume the cop would either balk at you while he presses the officer down need assist button in his radio so his brother in blue take you down, or say, OK, I remand myself to myself and I will escort myself to the jail while you sit there in amazement and forget to file the complaint.