We have plenty of specialists, but there are areas of the country with shortages of GPs, mostly because becoming a specialist is the only way to pay off the massive debt incurred to get an M.D. in the first place.
Selling security is completely different from providing security. Look at TSA for instance, no security provided, but plenty 'sold'. Same with the CAs, their product is a signed certificate which is recognized by browsers, their product is not the security of their own organization. Sure, if they're hacked they'll lose everything, but MBAs think the chance of that happening is so low that it isn't worth it to implement security.
We've also seen what the MBAs will do when a hack does occur - try to keep it a secret for as long as possible. Again, the security of the organization is not the product, just the certificate and some security theater.
Congress has the power to establish a Post Office, they're not required to. Congress is by no means required to exercise all of their enumerated powers. For instance, they haven't declared war in over 50 years, despite multiple 'wars' with U.S. involvement in the interim.
Do you have any data to show what parts of the U.S. are not reached by FedEx or UPS (separately or together)?. As far as I know, aside from P.O. boxes (which are a USPS product for the most part) you can mail to any address on FedEx (or UPS) that you can with USPS, that should lose tons of money because they don't get to make up for it with 5lbs of junk mail per month.
It's not that Diginotar can no longer be trusted, it's that they never should have been trusted at all. Clearly their security was faulty and moreover, someone in management over there had the gall to try to cover up the security breach. The for this should be obvious - they have a vested interest in appearing secure, even if they aren't.
How long until we find the same is true for virtually every CA in the world?
How very American of you to forget about the existence of the REST OF THE WORLD.
That 'civil union' won't mean a damn thing once you cross a national border. A marriage will. U.S. states will recognize a marriage between two 14 year olds conducted in Ethiopia, but the Netherlands (where gay marriage is legal) won't recognize a 'civil union' from the U.S. It's not a marriage, and that matters not just in state or federal law but in common law, and the law of virtually every nation on Earth.
Further, the fact that marriage is conducted by churches is just a leftover from when the Catholic Church essentially ruled Europe. I suppose this would mean that government administration of welfare, taxation, education, etc. is a violation of the separation of church and state. Are we really stuck at the level of church intrusion into secular life that we had in the English Colonies in 1776? It had been declining for hundreds of years by then, and has been since, and will likely continue to do so.
If anything, marriage has been under state control for over 200 years. The state decides who can get a marriage license, and therefore who may marry. The state also decides who may perform marriages. That religious officials may perform them is a tip of the hat to tradition - a tradition that formed from Church control of society after the essentially apocalyptic fall of Rome.
Actually, different states are 'separate sovereigns', as is the Federal government. You can be charged by two states, and the Federal government, for the same crime. I believe it's happened previously with Mafia cases involving NJ and NY.
Groupon isn't opt-in, it's opt-out. It's hard to even see the deals, let alone purchase them, without entering your e-mail address. There's no option at registration to disable e-mails. Instead, you have to wait until you get one and click the opt-out link.
On top of that, there's no way to opt-out of them giving your e-mail address to the retailer in question, who is then free to sell it to whomever they wish. (I stopped using groupon when they implemented that particular 'feature').
$20K per employee? Even if my employer contributed 10% of my salary towards my 401k, the total cost my benefits (including medical and dental) wouldn't even be $15k! What kind of benefits are they getting that $20,000 would be a cut instead of an elimination of all benefits for every employee? 20K per employee in benefits costs sounds extremely high.
I'm not in a union, there's no union for my profession. Sure, I don't get a pension, but my income went up 50% in 12 months. I'm not management, I'm just white collar.
Unions create a system where smaller businesses can't get enough skilled workers because they can't afford the level of benefits given by giant corporations. Unions take their dues and use them to line politicians' pockets to keep the system that way.
Meanwhile, businesses in Japan and China don't face the same costs and are able to out-compete U.S. businesses. The union's solution to this is to demand that Americans only buy American goods. I'm rather happy I didn't buy a GM car before the bankruptcy, as the warranty would no longer be valid.
I'm a liberal, but I think benefits like healthcare should be provided by the state, and I don't want one cent of my paycheck going to a union.
Really? The fight was over $1000/yr per employee? $252 million is a big number, it's fun to claim people are greedy, but that's not nearly as big a number when you divide it over the number of years, and the number of employees who were striking.
Incorrect, while the One Child Policy actually targets one specific ethnic group, it has led to a large number of female abortions. Of course, that issue may be specific to China. The policy also really isn't effective in selecting certain genes, it will simply reduce the percentage of the population in that ethnic group (which is current the largest in China).
If the same policy were applied to a smaller ethnic group, say the Amish (I choose the Amish because they are an isolated group that occasionally faces discrimination in the U.S.), it would have the effect of slowly destroying their communities and culture. That may not constitute an atrocity but it certainly isn't moral.
Further, I think anyone can immediately see the problem with fining a family for having too many children (they're likely strapped for cash as it is). The effect of this might be reduced in a communist country, I'm not clear on the level of social programs for families in China.
The Nazi's thought they were going to improve the human race as well. That we've found a (possibly) better biological indicator of intellect does not mean that it would be moral to use that knowledge to 'improve' the human gene pool.
Nor would it be a good idea. Cutting down the gene pool is a generically bad idea. Too much risk of damage, besides it's hard to imagine a way to restrict the gene pool without committing an atrocity.
That being said, there's nothing wrong with studying this simply for the pure science of it, no matter who does the work.
The purchase hasn't gone through yet, so referring to Motorola Mobility as 'Google' is not (yet) accurate. Who knows what Google will do with Moto once they have control? They might decide efuse was a bad idea and release an unlock app.
Actually, the right to free speech in this case would be #14 (Federal) or #2 (Constitution of California). Parts of the bill of rights have been incorporated via Amendment #14.
In any case, you're right, there's no constitutional right to use the subway, though SCOTUS has recognized a right to interstate travel, and one could argue that blocking access that blocking access to interstate travel might be held to violate that right.
Article I of the Constitution of California enumerates protected rights, oddly it doesn't cover travel, though it might be elsewhere in the constitution.
I believe the rule is that if you're recording audio anywhere without permission it's "wiretapping". Recording just video doesn't quite have the same problem, or at least it didn't.
After all, bugging someone's house isn't much different from wiretapping.
I agree with both of you. By the way, I generally consider myself left of center, but I'm in Upstate New York. Basically, rather than cutting services wholesale I'd like New York to have a choice of keeping the services it wants, and keeping more of the tax money. Currently the federal government receives far more in taxes from NY than is spent here. If the federal government cut services and forced states to pick up the slack, NY could probably do it. Eventually federal taxes would go down as the debt crisis passed and we ended one or two of the current wars. State taxes would likely go up, and so long as the increase is in income tax but not property tax, I can live with that. (I have a job, I pay income tax, but property taxes in Monroe County are already too high).
I think that the federal government would resist giving up their power, but it's power that doesn't rightfully belong to them. Plus, by concentrating all of this power in the federal government I think we've made it more difficult to get things done, and allowed fanatical laws to be applied nationwide.
For states with serious financial imbalances, there would certainly be cuts in services and high taxes. For those states, some level of transfer payment could probably be made, though it would be controversial. I think most voters would quickly see the logic of "if it's expensive to live where you live, move". For very conservative states that simply won't spend the money, they'll eventually see the local economic issues caused by businesses leaving. I imagine Texas (which I identify as very conservative financially) would do just fine, because they would be willing to tax to pay for necessary services.
Overall, cutting intergovernmental revenue would force states to decide which services they really need.
As for highways being used for national defense, I think they're used enough for commerce and leisure that the states can justifiably be required to pay for them, even if national defense is a side benefit.
The "lowest taxes in the developed world" isn't quite true when you take into account state and local taxes.
However, I would say that the real problems are in the "My road project in my town" group. While the states have broad powers to tax, for some reason the argument has stuck that only the federal government can come up with the money for certain things. The federal government should not be funding the states, and any such funding should be cut. The states should administer their own taxes. When the states have more power, state elections will be even more contested, and better representation will result.
Social Security should probably be in the federal realm, since plenty of people move after retiring (and thus there's an imbalance of retirees). Medicare/Medicaid is already 50% funded by the states. If individual states really need help with Medicare costs then we can implement a "transfer" similar to the system used in Canada.
Defense spending certainly does need to be cut. Britain ruled half the world with 125,000 troops. We've got 1.4 million active troops. However, the time would be best spent finding a few large defense projects that can be cut for quick savings, and leaving the rest to an independent committee.
The Social Security wage base should be removed, so that it applies to all wages, not just the first $100K.
My bet is that if all that was done, overall taxes would still go up, but federal taxes might actually go down. Some laws would also change, without the threat of losing federal funding, states might be less willing to implement federal programs (e.g. drinking age at 21, abstinence-only education, etc.)
Federal road tax shouldn't exist either. There are very few federal roads, even the interstates are maintained by the states. They can fund that themselves.
Direct Payment and Grants to the states total $2 trillion. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_spending_by_state.php?year=2010&chart=Z0&units=b&rank=t
You can't simply transform the pin to make it stronger. By its nature there would still be a limited number of possible values. If there are 10,000 potential pins, and I hash the pin to get the encryption key, there are still only 10,000 possible hashes.
If you assume that an attacker can get access to the storage of the phone, then brute forcing the pin will be trivial, and the passwords will be no more secure than if they were plaintext.
The real solution would be to not store the passwords on the phone, rather store them on a remote, secure server. The server can enforce pin-lockouts more effectively, and could probably act as the polling agent for the various e-mail and other accounts, potentially saving battery life on the phone. But that has its own complications.
Those buttons do work in my great-grandmother's nursing home. It seems the elevators are timed for people who are moving slowly or are in wheelchairs, but pressing the button makes the doors close. (Normal time for the doors seems to be about 2 minutes).
You're half-correct, the browser would need to be modified to send the Host: slashdot.org header, while accessing it directly at the given IP. The quickest way is to change the hosts file.
I just don't understand this argument, is there a secret Google News that's different from the one I visit? When I go to google news, I see what basically looks like some nice search results. There's a headline, one or two sentences, and usually an image. Yes, I understand they host some AP content, but I believe they have a license for that. For the actual content, you have to go the newspaper's site, complete with ads.
Google might use a different crawler and index for news, but that doesn't mean that News is any different from Search. If a newspaper doesn't want to be listed on Google, they don't deserve a choice to be listed in Search but not News (though they have that choice now, through technical means). Google can choose to delist your site, if they feel that doing so improves their customer experience (or for any other reason for that matter).
Slashdot Mirror
We have plenty of specialists, but there are areas of the country with shortages of GPs, mostly because becoming a specialist is the only way to pay off the massive debt incurred to get an M.D. in the first place.
Tax anyone with more than 1 job? So the millions of poor who work 2 or 3 jobs to put food on the table get taxed at 90%?
Selling security is completely different from providing security. Look at TSA for instance, no security provided, but plenty 'sold'. Same with the CAs, their product is a signed certificate which is recognized by browsers, their product is not the security of their own organization. Sure, if they're hacked they'll lose everything, but MBAs think the chance of that happening is so low that it isn't worth it to implement security.
We've also seen what the MBAs will do when a hack does occur - try to keep it a secret for as long as possible. Again, the security of the organization is not the product, just the certificate and some security theater.
Congress has the power to establish a Post Office, they're not required to. Congress is by no means required to exercise all of their enumerated powers. For instance, they haven't declared war in over 50 years, despite multiple 'wars' with U.S. involvement in the interim.
Do you have any data to show what parts of the U.S. are not reached by FedEx or UPS (separately or together)?. As far as I know, aside from P.O. boxes (which are a USPS product for the most part) you can mail to any address on FedEx (or UPS) that you can with USPS, that should lose tons of money because they don't get to make up for it with 5lbs of junk mail per month.
It's not that Diginotar can no longer be trusted, it's that they never should have been trusted at all. Clearly their security was faulty and moreover, someone in management over there had the gall to try to cover up the security breach. The for this should be obvious - they have a vested interest in appearing secure, even if they aren't.
How long until we find the same is true for virtually every CA in the world?
How very American of you to forget about the existence of the REST OF THE WORLD.
That 'civil union' won't mean a damn thing once you cross a national border. A marriage will. U.S. states will recognize a marriage between two 14 year olds conducted in Ethiopia, but the Netherlands (where gay marriage is legal) won't recognize a 'civil union' from the U.S. It's not a marriage, and that matters not just in state or federal law but in common law, and the law of virtually every nation on Earth.
Further, the fact that marriage is conducted by churches is just a leftover from when the Catholic Church essentially ruled Europe. I suppose this would mean that government administration of welfare, taxation, education, etc. is a violation of the separation of church and state. Are we really stuck at the level of church intrusion into secular life that we had in the English Colonies in 1776? It had been declining for hundreds of years by then, and has been since, and will likely continue to do so.
If anything, marriage has been under state control for over 200 years. The state decides who can get a marriage license, and therefore who may marry. The state also decides who may perform marriages. That religious officials may perform them is a tip of the hat to tradition - a tradition that formed from Church control of society after the essentially apocalyptic fall of Rome.
Actually, different states are 'separate sovereigns', as is the Federal government. You can be charged by two states, and the Federal government, for the same crime. I believe it's happened previously with Mafia cases involving NJ and NY.
Groupon isn't opt-in, it's opt-out. It's hard to even see the deals, let alone purchase them, without entering your e-mail address. There's no option at registration to disable e-mails. Instead, you have to wait until you get one and click the opt-out link.
On top of that, there's no way to opt-out of them giving your e-mail address to the retailer in question, who is then free to sell it to whomever they wish. (I stopped using groupon when they implemented that particular 'feature').
$20K per employee? Even if my employer contributed 10% of my salary towards my 401k, the total cost my benefits (including medical and dental) wouldn't even be $15k! What kind of benefits are they getting that $20,000 would be a cut instead of an elimination of all benefits for every employee? 20K per employee in benefits costs sounds extremely high.
I'm not in a union, there's no union for my profession. Sure, I don't get a pension, but my income went up 50% in 12 months. I'm not management, I'm just white collar.
Unions create a system where smaller businesses can't get enough skilled workers because they can't afford the level of benefits given by giant corporations. Unions take their dues and use them to line politicians' pockets to keep the system that way.
Meanwhile, businesses in Japan and China don't face the same costs and are able to out-compete U.S. businesses. The union's solution to this is to demand that Americans only buy American goods. I'm rather happy I didn't buy a GM car before the bankruptcy, as the warranty would no longer be valid.
I'm a liberal, but I think benefits like healthcare should be provided by the state, and I don't want one cent of my paycheck going to a union.
Really? The fight was over $1000/yr per employee? $252 million is a big number, it's fun to claim people are greedy, but that's not nearly as big a number when you divide it over the number of years, and the number of employees who were striking.
Incorrect, while the One Child Policy actually targets one specific ethnic group, it has led to a large number of female abortions. Of course, that issue may be specific to China. The policy also really isn't effective in selecting certain genes, it will simply reduce the percentage of the population in that ethnic group (which is current the largest in China).
If the same policy were applied to a smaller ethnic group, say the Amish (I choose the Amish because they are an isolated group that occasionally faces discrimination in the U.S.), it would have the effect of slowly destroying their communities and culture. That may not constitute an atrocity but it certainly isn't moral.
Further, I think anyone can immediately see the problem with fining a family for having too many children (they're likely strapped for cash as it is). The effect of this might be reduced in a communist country, I'm not clear on the level of social programs for families in China.
The Nazi's thought they were going to improve the human race as well. That we've found a (possibly) better biological indicator of intellect does not mean that it would be moral to use that knowledge to 'improve' the human gene pool.
Nor would it be a good idea. Cutting down the gene pool is a generically bad idea. Too much risk of damage, besides it's hard to imagine a way to restrict the gene pool without committing an atrocity.
That being said, there's nothing wrong with studying this simply for the pure science of it, no matter who does the work.
- Of course, I only scored a 1280 on the SAT.
The purchase hasn't gone through yet, so referring to Motorola Mobility as 'Google' is not (yet) accurate. Who knows what Google will do with Moto once they have control? They might decide efuse was a bad idea and release an unlock app.
Actually, the right to free speech in this case would be #14 (Federal) or #2 (Constitution of California). Parts of the bill of rights have been incorporated via Amendment #14.
In any case, you're right, there's no constitutional right to use the subway, though SCOTUS has recognized a right to interstate travel, and one could argue that blocking access that blocking access to interstate travel might be held to violate that right.
Article I of the Constitution of California enumerates protected rights, oddly it doesn't cover travel, though it might be elsewhere in the constitution.
-- I'm not a lawyer, and I live in NY
I believe the rule is that if you're recording audio anywhere without permission it's "wiretapping". Recording just video doesn't quite have the same problem, or at least it didn't.
After all, bugging someone's house isn't much different from wiretapping.
I agree with both of you. By the way, I generally consider myself left of center, but I'm in Upstate New York. Basically, rather than cutting services wholesale I'd like New York to have a choice of keeping the services it wants, and keeping more of the tax money. Currently the federal government receives far more in taxes from NY than is spent here. If the federal government cut services and forced states to pick up the slack, NY could probably do it. Eventually federal taxes would go down as the debt crisis passed and we ended one or two of the current wars. State taxes would likely go up, and so long as the increase is in income tax but not property tax, I can live with that. (I have a job, I pay income tax, but property taxes in Monroe County are already too high).
I think that the federal government would resist giving up their power, but it's power that doesn't rightfully belong to them. Plus, by concentrating all of this power in the federal government I think we've made it more difficult to get things done, and allowed fanatical laws to be applied nationwide.
For states with serious financial imbalances, there would certainly be cuts in services and high taxes. For those states, some level of transfer payment could probably be made, though it would be controversial. I think most voters would quickly see the logic of "if it's expensive to live where you live, move". For very conservative states that simply won't spend the money, they'll eventually see the local economic issues caused by businesses leaving. I imagine Texas (which I identify as very conservative financially) would do just fine, because they would be willing to tax to pay for necessary services.
Overall, cutting intergovernmental revenue would force states to decide which services they really need.
As for highways being used for national defense, I think they're used enough for commerce and leisure that the states can justifiably be required to pay for them, even if national defense is a side benefit.
1 correction:
I shouldn't have included direct payments, as that probably includes Social Security.
The number should be $500 billion (grants) in 2008, I'm sure that's higher now.
The "lowest taxes in the developed world" isn't quite true when you take into account state and local taxes.
However, I would say that the real problems are in the "My road project in my town" group. While the states have broad powers to tax, for some reason the argument has stuck that only the federal government can come up with the money for certain things. The federal government should not be funding the states, and any such funding should be cut. The states should administer their own taxes. When the states have more power, state elections will be even more contested, and better representation will result.
Social Security should probably be in the federal realm, since plenty of people move after retiring (and thus there's an imbalance of retirees). Medicare/Medicaid is already 50% funded by the states. If individual states really need help with Medicare costs then we can implement a "transfer" similar to the system used in Canada.
Defense spending certainly does need to be cut. Britain ruled half the world with 125,000 troops. We've got 1.4 million active troops. However, the time would be best spent finding a few large defense projects that can be cut for quick savings, and leaving the rest to an independent committee.
The Social Security wage base should be removed, so that it applies to all wages, not just the first $100K.
My bet is that if all that was done, overall taxes would still go up, but federal taxes might actually go down. Some laws would also change, without the threat of losing federal funding, states might be less willing to implement federal programs (e.g. drinking age at 21, abstinence-only education, etc.)
Federal road tax shouldn't exist either. There are very few federal roads, even the interstates are maintained by the states. They can fund that themselves.
Direct Payment and Grants to the states total $2 trillion. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_spending_by_state.php?year=2010&chart=Z0&units=b&rank=t
You can't simply transform the pin to make it stronger. By its nature there would still be a limited number of possible values. If there are 10,000 potential pins, and I hash the pin to get the encryption key, there are still only 10,000 possible hashes.
If you assume that an attacker can get access to the storage of the phone, then brute forcing the pin will be trivial, and the passwords will be no more secure than if they were plaintext.
The real solution would be to not store the passwords on the phone, rather store them on a remote, secure server. The server can enforce pin-lockouts more effectively, and could probably act as the polling agent for the various e-mail and other accounts, potentially saving battery life on the phone. But that has its own complications.
Those buttons do work in my great-grandmother's nursing home. It seems the elevators are timed for people who are moving slowly or are in wheelchairs, but pressing the button makes the doors close. (Normal time for the doors seems to be about 2 minutes).
You're half-correct, the browser would need to be modified to send the Host: slashdot.org header, while accessing it directly at the given IP. The quickest way is to change the hosts file.
I just don't understand this argument, is there a secret Google News that's different from the one I visit? When I go to google news, I see what basically looks like some nice search results. There's a headline, one or two sentences, and usually an image. Yes, I understand they host some AP content, but I believe they have a license for that. For the actual content, you have to go the newspaper's site, complete with ads.
Google might use a different crawler and index for news, but that doesn't mean that News is any different from Search. If a newspaper doesn't want to be listed on Google, they don't deserve a choice to be listed in Search but not News (though they have that choice now, through technical means). Google can choose to delist your site, if they feel that doing so improves their customer experience (or for any other reason for that matter).
You can still have pseudonymity, just sign up for an e-mail address and don't use your real name.