Article 1, Section 9 does not apply to the states, it applies to Congress/the federal government, in that Congress cannot institute a federal tariff on exports from states. Nothing in this section is applied to the individual states.
Not to mention, as another poster mentioned, this is not a tax on exports, it's a tax on imports.
This is technically true, but that's not the story. The story isn't that the rates will be available, it's that we'll know how much candidates spend, and where they're spending it.
The rates themselves are, by law, the lowest rate that the stations charge (to avoid stations charging different rates based on whether they support that candidate) - so that's not really that informative. It's actually knowing that Candidate X purchased 800 points of TV time in Market A and 1200 points in Market B that is interesting. Currently, this information is available, but only by driving to the stations during business hours to view them, which is of course not very useful.
This has nothing to do with the current administration. As the article (and the summary!) clearly state, the law that requires ending UNESCO's funding was passed in 1994. Maybe they would have done so anyway, but as it stands, it was not a choice, it was them following a law passed 17 years ago.
Really. As bad as SyFy is, at least it does show at least some legitimate sci-fi. If not only ad revenue, but subscriber revenue was based on viewership, you'd better believe they'd drop sci-fi entirely to cater to the lowest common denominator.
You'd need more than 50% to not return the form before it would make any practical difference at the statistical level.
Except that the census isn't designed solely for macro-level statistical information. One of the most important roles of a census is determining a city/county/state's population, which is used to allocate funding, and determine the number of representatives in the US House and state houses/senates, which does have a significant impact on the makeup of those bodies.
Return rates are not uniform across the board. Large cities are notoriously under-counted, because of the difficulty of counting the homeless population, renters, those who move during the course of the census, those who do not speak English (even though the Census prints in multiple languages, return rates are still lower among non-English speakers), and various other groups that tend to be much more prevalent in large cities than in smaller cities and more middle-class suburban neighborhoods. This map of Census forms returned county-by-county provides an interesting look at the issue. While the percentages can't be considered completely accurate due to issues like vacant apartments, etc, there's still significant variance. In New York state, for example, mail return rates per county range from 43% to 84%. That's a staggering variance, and when it comes to ensuring that residents have adequate funding and representation, having fairly accurate results is essential.
As an aside, statistical sampling for the census has been discussed in the past to avoid these issues. I'm not opposed to using a reasonable sampling technique, so long as it accounts for areas with statistically low return rates. However, Republicans oppose sampling because they feel it overcounts groups that tend to vote Democratic (and, Democrats tend to support sampling because they feel it's a more accurate count). In 1999, the Supreme Court ruled that sampling cannot be used to determine population for the purposes of apportioning US congressional seats, and while it could be used for drawing state/local lines and for allocating federal funds, it's such a political football that it probably won't happen in the foreseeable future.
As has probably already been stated, that's 4.2 billion pennies - i.e. an integer overflow. I agree that slot machines shouldn't have these issues, but by the same token, if a machine whose posted top prize is, say, $10,000 says that I won $42 million, I would expect that there's an error. Similarly, if my bank has a computer error and tells me that I have an extra $1 million in my account, I wouldn't expect them to honor the error.
There should, in my opinion, be common sense for that as well. I don't see any reason why the government should, for example, ban smoking in bars and bowling centers. Anyone working in a bar or bowling center should expect smoking there.
My father owns a bowling center, and if smoking is ever outlawed in bowling centers (it's been rumored for a few years now), he will lose 10-20% of his business. It won't affect casual bowlers, but for our league bowlers who chain smoke, why come out once a week for most of the year if you can't smoke inside?
I agree that factories, cubicle farms, and most workplaces should be smoke-free, and if necessary, laws should be enacted to make them smoke-free. But in industries where customers are heavy smokers, and these laws can actually kill a business, the government should keep their hands off.
I'm not a Barr fan by any means, but it's worth noting that he has also recanted his position on DOMA. Whether you choose to believe his reversal is a personal point, of course; my main beef with Barr is his economic libertarianism, which you mentioned as well.
I agree that his imprisonment is a bit harsh, but he did violate a judge's order. Moreover, it's just stubbornness on his part; knowing there had been a trial in absentia, he should have just stayed out of New Zealand -- very few countries would extradite him for that charge.
Surely the founder of Wikipedia has better things to do than add a spam link to his own blog in an attempt to boost its page rank? He's had his share of controversy, but there are better ways he could accomplish such a thing (like, for example, spamming via Wikipedia -- while "nofollow" is enabled on Wikipedia, Wales was the one who had it enabled in the first place).
I'm surprised they're allowed to run early. I used to take the bus regularly, and where I live, if the bus driver was running more than about a minute or two early, the bus driver would park for a few minutes until they got back on schedule, then continue the run. If they were running early, and were caught as such, they were severely disciplined, with possible termination for multiple violations.
Exactly. I'm also not sure where the "1%" comes from -- if that's "registered accounts", then the number's especially dubious. Many user accounts are never or rarely used -- either because they're blocked immediately for vandalism/impersonation, or, more often, because people tend to open accounts they rarely or never use. I couldn't count the number of user accounts I've registered for in various spots around the internet -- anything from computer help boards, to games I'll never play, etc. 50/1 seems to me to be a common, and fairly accurate principle.
The writeup leaves much to be desired. Microsoft is giving free support for its own software -- certainly not a crime, and certainly something they'd be interested in doing (I somehow doubt they'd give support for Ubuntu and OpenOffice). This is no different than Norton offering free support for their product, but not offering it for AVG. No, it's not a humanitarian effort, it's them trying to lock in their monopoly -- something that most of us don't like, but something that's in their best interests, and isn't illegal by any means. I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, but it would be nice to have legitimate criticism of them.
It appears to be a technical term for certain types of stock. MarketWatch says that it means NASDAQ has listed them as a type "G" stock, meaning "Deficient and bankrupt" -- deficient meaning that it doesn't meet NASDAQ listing requirements, and bankrupt meaning that the company's currently in bankruptcy. A third term, delinquent, is also possible -- that's when the company missed regulatory filing deadlines.
I know it's not done by default, and it may be a bit annoying, but try clicking the button on the bottom-right of the video screen -- it makes the video full-screen.
As was said in the last story, the OpenDocument Foundation has no official status -- it was merely a group founded by a few guys who have changed their minds about OpenDocument (whether they were paid to do so or not, no one knows). The closure of the Foundation has no impact, other than the ability for OOXML supporters to spread FUD headlines like this.
The reason that it's encouraged to wait on political and military leaders is that the world's views on them and their politics are shaped over time. In the US, much of Harry Truman's legacy comes from historical perspective, years after he left office. Let's say they name an asteroid after Tony Blair*, and ten years from now we find out that Blair's administration was corrupt, sold arms on the black market to terrorists in exchange for party kickbacks, etc. That's quite a problem, in their opinion.
I don't really have a strong opinion on actors being named, but if they had a significant impact on life outside TV/cinema, then I think it's appropriate. Roddenberry had a significant effect on the perception of space, Nichelle Nichols had a significant effect on race relations with the Shatner kiss, Takei has been important, in that he's not only openly gay, but also was an Asian character who could drive**. I'm not sure about those like Heinlein, who haven't really had a significant effect outside those interested in sci-fi, but I don't necessarily see a problem with it either.
* I have no opinions on Blair's politics -- the name was used merely for convenience.
** Joke. But he really was important as one of the first major Asian actors.
What needs to be understood is that she intended for it to look like a bomb - that was the intent of the "art". With the ATHF "bombs", that was a clear case where they didn't mean for it to be interpreted as a bomb; however, she went into an airport, with something resembling a bomb and that most people, outside bomb technicians, would not be able to tell was fake. She's damn lucky they didn't kill her, because given what it looks like, if I were a cop responding to this, in a split-second situation, I'm not sure I wouldn't have fired.
As it was, they held her at gunpoint for the same reason that someone holding an intruder hostage in their own household will get cuffed along with the intruder when the police arrive -- because they don't know everything. Their job is to ensure safety at the airport, and since they weren't sure it wasn't a bomb when first responding, they acted with force.
I don't like Flash ads at all, but they're relatively non-obtrusive (c.f. the many sites that load video and audio without permission, spank the monkey and win an iPod, etc.) I'd rather have seen them stay out of Flash media altogether, but this is certainly better than what it could be.
I can't even begin to think about how stupid an idea this is. Just imagine the police deploying a thousand mobile phones across a city to trace every single call.
The ESRB rating system is fundamentally flawed. Essentially, the "E" rating is given to mostly sports games, and games like Mario Party that are aimed at all audiences. "E-10+" covers very few games, mostly those "E" games that want to slip in a swear word or two for shock value. "T" gets a bit more use, as it covers fantasy games with violence, and a few other games (Tony Hawk, Sims) with a bit harsher language or some barely sexual content. "M" covers most successful games, because almost all FPS games are rated M. "AO" is also one that gets little-to-no usage, because no one will carry such a game.
The ESRB would probably have a more even distribution, and perhaps a better system, by combining "E-10+" and "T" into one rating, say, "YA" (Young Adults), and this would cover all E-10 material and some Teen material. "M" would be split into "M-14" and "M-17" (similar to the distinction between PG-13 and R in the MPAA); both would allow gore, but M-14 might cover the less gory, more realistic games like Medal of Honor and Command and Conquer (currently "T") and a few of the popular FPS. More gritty, destructive games might fit under "M-17" (GTA, Mortal Kombat).
I'm not saying this wouldn't be gamed like the ESRB system is, but it would at least separate out the tame "M" games from the more destructive. The CSI games, for example, are rated "M" when the most graphic thing there are relatively tame autopsies, not near as graphic as those seen on the "TV-14" rated television show, where one of the characters was once sprayed with blood from the opening of a corpse's cranium. "M-14" would more appropriately reflect this game.
Slashdot Mirror
Article 1, Section 9 does not apply to the states, it applies to Congress/the federal government, in that Congress cannot institute a federal tariff on exports from states. Nothing in this section is applied to the individual states. Not to mention, as another poster mentioned, this is not a tax on exports, it's a tax on imports.
This is technically true, but that's not the story. The story isn't that the rates will be available, it's that we'll know how much candidates spend, and where they're spending it.
The rates themselves are, by law, the lowest rate that the stations charge (to avoid stations charging different rates based on whether they support that candidate) - so that's not really that informative. It's actually knowing that Candidate X purchased 800 points of TV time in Market A and 1200 points in Market B that is interesting. Currently, this information is available, but only by driving to the stations during business hours to view them, which is of course not very useful.
This has nothing to do with the current administration. As the article (and the summary!) clearly state, the law that requires ending UNESCO's funding was passed in 1994. Maybe they would have done so anyway, but as it stands, it was not a choice, it was them following a law passed 17 years ago.
Really. As bad as SyFy is, at least it does show at least some legitimate sci-fi. If not only ad revenue, but subscriber revenue was based on viewership, you'd better believe they'd drop sci-fi entirely to cater to the lowest common denominator.
Except that the census isn't designed solely for macro-level statistical information. One of the most important roles of a census is determining a city/county/state's population, which is used to allocate funding, and determine the number of representatives in the US House and state houses/senates, which does have a significant impact on the makeup of those bodies.
Return rates are not uniform across the board. Large cities are notoriously under-counted, because of the difficulty of counting the homeless population, renters, those who move during the course of the census, those who do not speak English (even though the Census prints in multiple languages, return rates are still lower among non-English speakers), and various other groups that tend to be much more prevalent in large cities than in smaller cities and more middle-class suburban neighborhoods. This map of Census forms returned county-by-county provides an interesting look at the issue. While the percentages can't be considered completely accurate due to issues like vacant apartments, etc, there's still significant variance. In New York state, for example, mail return rates per county range from 43% to 84%. That's a staggering variance, and when it comes to ensuring that residents have adequate funding and representation, having fairly accurate results is essential.
As an aside, statistical sampling for the census has been discussed in the past to avoid these issues. I'm not opposed to using a reasonable sampling technique, so long as it accounts for areas with statistically low return rates. However, Republicans oppose sampling because they feel it overcounts groups that tend to vote Democratic (and, Democrats tend to support sampling because they feel it's a more accurate count). In 1999, the Supreme Court ruled that sampling cannot be used to determine population for the purposes of apportioning US congressional seats, and while it could be used for drawing state/local lines and for allocating federal funds, it's such a political football that it probably won't happen in the foreseeable future.
As has probably already been stated, that's 4.2 billion pennies - i.e. an integer overflow. I agree that slot machines shouldn't have these issues, but by the same token, if a machine whose posted top prize is, say, $10,000 says that I won $42 million, I would expect that there's an error. Similarly, if my bank has a computer error and tells me that I have an extra $1 million in my account, I wouldn't expect them to honor the error.
Oatmeal? Spittle? Semen? This must be where Wilford Brimley was strangled by Bob Crane!
I use a Mac (as well as a Windows box), but I would no sooner say, "I'm a Mac" than I would, "I'm a Pepper."
Wouldn't you like to be a Pepper too?
There should, in my opinion, be common sense for that as well. I don't see any reason why the government should, for example, ban smoking in bars and bowling centers. Anyone working in a bar or bowling center should expect smoking there. My father owns a bowling center, and if smoking is ever outlawed in bowling centers (it's been rumored for a few years now), he will lose 10-20% of his business. It won't affect casual bowlers, but for our league bowlers who chain smoke, why come out once a week for most of the year if you can't smoke inside? I agree that factories, cubicle farms, and most workplaces should be smoke-free, and if necessary, laws should be enacted to make them smoke-free. But in industries where customers are heavy smokers, and these laws can actually kill a business, the government should keep their hands off.
I'm not a Barr fan by any means, but it's worth noting that he has also recanted his position on DOMA. Whether you choose to believe his reversal is a personal point, of course; my main beef with Barr is his economic libertarianism, which you mentioned as well.
I agree that his imprisonment is a bit harsh, but he did violate a judge's order. Moreover, it's just stubbornness on his part; knowing there had been a trial in absentia, he should have just stayed out of New Zealand -- very few countries would extradite him for that charge.
Instead of linking to Techdirt, could the editors please consider linking to the actual article?
Surely the founder of Wikipedia has better things to do than add a spam link to his own blog in an attempt to boost its page rank? He's had his share of controversy, but there are better ways he could accomplish such a thing (like, for example, spamming via Wikipedia -- while "nofollow" is enabled on Wikipedia, Wales was the one who had it enabled in the first place).
I'm surprised they're allowed to run early. I used to take the bus regularly, and where I live, if the bus driver was running more than about a minute or two early, the bus driver would park for a few minutes until they got back on schedule, then continue the run. If they were running early, and were caught as such, they were severely disciplined, with possible termination for multiple violations.
Exactly. I'm also not sure where the "1%" comes from -- if that's "registered accounts", then the number's especially dubious. Many user accounts are never or rarely used -- either because they're blocked immediately for vandalism/impersonation, or, more often, because people tend to open accounts they rarely or never use. I couldn't count the number of user accounts I've registered for in various spots around the internet -- anything from computer help boards, to games I'll never play, etc. 50/1 seems to me to be a common, and fairly accurate principle.
The writeup leaves much to be desired. Microsoft is giving free support for its own software -- certainly not a crime, and certainly something they'd be interested in doing (I somehow doubt they'd give support for Ubuntu and OpenOffice). This is no different than Norton offering free support for their product, but not offering it for AVG. No, it's not a humanitarian effort, it's them trying to lock in their monopoly -- something that most of us don't like, but something that's in their best interests, and isn't illegal by any means. I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, but it would be nice to have legitimate criticism of them.
It appears to be a technical term for certain types of stock. MarketWatch says that it means NASDAQ has listed them as a type "G" stock, meaning "Deficient and bankrupt" -- deficient meaning that it doesn't meet NASDAQ listing requirements, and bankrupt meaning that the company's currently in bankruptcy. A third term, delinquent, is also possible -- that's when the company missed regulatory filing deadlines.
I know it's not done by default, and it may be a bit annoying, but try clicking the button on the bottom-right of the video screen -- it makes the video full-screen.
As was said in the last story, the OpenDocument Foundation has no official status -- it was merely a group founded by a few guys who have changed their minds about OpenDocument (whether they were paid to do so or not, no one knows). The closure of the Foundation has no impact, other than the ability for OOXML supporters to spread FUD headlines like this.
Click the "permanent link" link on the left side of the page, and you'll get a link to a version that will not change.
The reason that it's encouraged to wait on political and military leaders is that the world's views on them and their politics are shaped over time. In the US, much of Harry Truman's legacy comes from historical perspective, years after he left office. Let's say they name an asteroid after Tony Blair*, and ten years from now we find out that Blair's administration was corrupt, sold arms on the black market to terrorists in exchange for party kickbacks, etc. That's quite a problem, in their opinion. I don't really have a strong opinion on actors being named, but if they had a significant impact on life outside TV/cinema, then I think it's appropriate. Roddenberry had a significant effect on the perception of space, Nichelle Nichols had a significant effect on race relations with the Shatner kiss, Takei has been important, in that he's not only openly gay, but also was an Asian character who could drive**. I'm not sure about those like Heinlein, who haven't really had a significant effect outside those interested in sci-fi, but I don't necessarily see a problem with it either. * I have no opinions on Blair's politics -- the name was used merely for convenience. ** Joke. But he really was important as one of the first major Asian actors.
What needs to be understood is that she intended for it to look like a bomb - that was the intent of the "art". With the ATHF "bombs", that was a clear case where they didn't mean for it to be interpreted as a bomb; however, she went into an airport, with something resembling a bomb and that most people, outside bomb technicians, would not be able to tell was fake. She's damn lucky they didn't kill her, because given what it looks like, if I were a cop responding to this, in a split-second situation, I'm not sure I wouldn't have fired.
As it was, they held her at gunpoint for the same reason that someone holding an intruder hostage in their own household will get cuffed along with the intruder when the police arrive -- because they don't know everything. Their job is to ensure safety at the airport, and since they weren't sure it wasn't a bomb when first responding, they acted with force.
I don't like Flash ads at all, but they're relatively non-obtrusive (c.f. the many sites that load video and audio without permission, spank the monkey and win an iPod, etc.) I'd rather have seen them stay out of Flash media altogether, but this is certainly better than what it could be.
I can't even begin to think about how stupid an idea this is. Just imagine the police deploying a thousand mobile phones across a city to trace every single call.
The ESRB rating system is fundamentally flawed. Essentially, the "E" rating is given to mostly sports games, and games like Mario Party that are aimed at all audiences. "E-10+" covers very few games, mostly those "E" games that want to slip in a swear word or two for shock value. "T" gets a bit more use, as it covers fantasy games with violence, and a few other games (Tony Hawk, Sims) with a bit harsher language or some barely sexual content. "M" covers most successful games, because almost all FPS games are rated M. "AO" is also one that gets little-to-no usage, because no one will carry such a game. The ESRB would probably have a more even distribution, and perhaps a better system, by combining "E-10+" and "T" into one rating, say, "YA" (Young Adults), and this would cover all E-10 material and some Teen material. "M" would be split into "M-14" and "M-17" (similar to the distinction between PG-13 and R in the MPAA); both would allow gore, but M-14 might cover the less gory, more realistic games like Medal of Honor and Command and Conquer (currently "T") and a few of the popular FPS. More gritty, destructive games might fit under "M-17" (GTA, Mortal Kombat). I'm not saying this wouldn't be gamed like the ESRB system is, but it would at least separate out the tame "M" games from the more destructive. The CSI games, for example, are rated "M" when the most graphic thing there are relatively tame autopsies, not near as graphic as those seen on the "TV-14" rated television show, where one of the characters was once sprayed with blood from the opening of a corpse's cranium. "M-14" would more appropriately reflect this game.