Apparently thinking that unelected bureaucracies are a bad idea means that Congress (or a state's legislature) is prohibited from making laws.
Question: In your mind, who should enforce these Congressionally passed laws if not "unelected bureaucrats"? Do we need to hold a vote for every beat-cop position in the state?
Not to nit-pick but in order to have an actual justice system the presumption of innocence must also go hand in hand with an independent investigation of the allegations in order to see if there is any evidence that proves guilt. The willingness to abandon the norms of jurious prudence in exchange for political advantage cuts both ways in this case IMHO.
Yeah, it really is that simple. Why don't you simply listen to what the actual terrorist say? Do you REALLY believe some sheltered, white, suburban "progressive" twit in a US college knows what motivates a terrorist from Pakistan or Iran or Saudi Arabia better than the terrorist himself?
Boy it's really convenient that
a) all terrorists have exactly the same beliefs and motivations
b) all terrorists are completely honest and forthright about what those beliefs actually are
It sure makes my job of blindly hating them much easier.
You can mock the premise that wealth equates to wisdom or intelligence if you like but there is ample evidence of it being true. Perhaps it might be more accurate based on statistics available to equate an education to wealth...Tell me, how many of these wealthy 1% did not graduate high school? How many didn't graduate college?
I feel like you might be oversimplifying a complex, multi-faceted issue here. For example how many of those "well educated" 1%’ers were born to already affluent families? It's much easier to graduate high school when you can afford a private tutor. It's much easier to graduate college when you don’t have to also work a part time (or full time) job in order to afford the tuition.
Simple solution - Ban all online advertising and tracking
Yes, what could be simpler than convincing hundreds of different governments and / or private entities (depending on who you think will be enforcing this ban)
to agree on a regulatory framework? Good luck with that.
If I may, I think I can propose an even simpler solution: If you don't like online advertising then don't visit sites that advertise. Problem solved.
Nah, that $4000 is virtual too. All money is virtual. The only real money is all gobbled up by collectors, because, well, it's actually REAL, as in made out of precious metals.
What makes you think precious metals are any more "real"? I mean, gold has a few useful industrial purposes, but generally speaking it's a shiny rock. The reason its valuable is the same reason any fiat currency is valuable (namely that people are willing to give you stuff in exchange for it).
Push all the coding you want. Won't magically make more American students capable of becoming good coders...Can't teach smart.
And how many really smart kids don't get in to coding because they've never been exposed to it and therefore don't realize it's something they would enjoy / be good at?
IMHO one of the things elementary and secondary education should seek to do is give students a broad exposure to many different subjects so that they can find where their skills and interests lie.
You do realize that the "Slashdot Community" is made up of many different people, right? It's entirely reasonable that some of them may (gasp!) disagree on a particular topic.
It only counts as hypocrisy if a single person espouses conflicting opinions.
Noting that the climate is changing does not require a "control Earth". It's a simple observational exercise.
Making conclusions about what is causing those changes would be easier if we could conduct experiments which would ideally include a control group, but given that's not feasible, what is your alternative proposal? Should we ignore our observations, stick our heads in the sand and hope the whole thing goes away on it's own?
Tell that to the guy who can't get insurance because he Googled one too many medical conditions
Does such a person actually exist or are you just making up hypotheticals?
or the guy who lost his job because his employer snooped his facebook password from the "free" wifi in the employee lounge, and objected to his political "likes".
Again, assuming this actually happened, that sounds like an egregious privacy violation on the part of the employer (not to mention a flagrant violation of labor law), but I can't see how it's particularly a problem with Facebook. Unless you're argument is that people shouldn't be allowed to share their political views on line because unscrupulous employers might misuse that information.
They are not clear. Nowhere does Google and the rest give you a full list of what they're tracking you on. Even on their privacy terms, they only provide "examples".
If they want to argue that their network is completely private property with which they are free to do what they please, then they can first forfeit any government granted right-of-way access to land they don't own. The reason network operators get free access to public and private land to run their pipes is that it's nominally in the public interest. If they don't want to operate in the public interest then they can go back to privately negotiating access rights with every individual land owner. Let me know how that works out for you.
I've heard anecdotally that many payment processors put language in their merchant agreements that explicitly prohibits charging a different price for card users specifically to prevent the merchant from discouraging card payments.
Damages. "They did thing X which cost me $Y. Give money pls." That's how civil lawsuits work.
IANAL but wouldn't I have to prove that "thing X" was wrong in some way before I would be entitled to damages. For a civil suit this usually means demonstrating either a civil infraction or a civil injury.
A civil infraction is defined as "a non criminal violation of a rule, ordinance, or statue".
This does not apply because in this hypothetical scenario the polluter didn't break any law in the area where they were operating.
A civil injury is defined as "any physical harm or damage done to person or property by breach of contract, breach of duty, negligence, or by a criminal offense".
There was no contract between me and the polluter so breach of contract does not apply.
The polluter does not have any specific duty that they owe to me so breach of duty does not apply.
The polluter did not break any laws in the jurisdiction in which they operate so criminal offense does not apply.
That just leaves negligence. Negligence is defined as "[failure] to act as an ordinarily prudent person would act under the circumstances". I think you'd have a tough time making that argument in reference to a legitimate business that obeyed all the rules and regulations of the jurisdiction in which they were operating.
In reality, most states already regulate themselves pretty well, and cutting EPA funding for more climate change research...will have no effect
That may be. I'm far from an expert on what exactly the EPA is responsible for. If you'll notice I didn't say anything about what the EPA's funding should or shouldn't be. I was specifically responding to your assertion that it should be up to each state to determine what level of pollution they wanted to allow.
Trump will be re-elected, and you will remain eternally assblasted for all time.
Well, I'm Canadian, so that was probably a given in any event.
Handle those matters by suing the other state or the responsible parties for damages.
If there are no federal laws dictating what type of polluting is and is not allowed (which is what you're advocating for no?) then in what court do I sue them and on what grounds? They've broken no law in their state and they're not technically operating in mine.
How about you let the states figure out how toxic and polluted they want their state to be, instead of dictating it from Washington?
When the state next to mine pumps toxins into the air they don't magically stop at the state line. Isn't the federal government supposed
to handle inter-state matters?
Deflation is bad. I will leave it as an exercise to the reader. I will feed you a couple of hints. What if you did nothing with your money and it increased in value? Would you buy anything?
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently thinking that unelected bureaucracies are a bad idea means that Congress (or a state's legislature) is prohibited from making laws.
Question: In your mind, who should enforce these Congressionally passed laws if not "unelected bureaucrats"? Do we need to hold a vote for every beat-cop position in the state?
Not to nit-pick but in order to have an actual justice system the presumption of innocence must also go hand in hand with an independent investigation of the allegations in order to see if there is any evidence that proves guilt. The willingness to abandon the norms of jurious prudence in exchange for political advantage cuts both ways in this case IMHO.
"good" is not subjective at all. The law is objectively good, as the example in the original story aptly illustrates.
How is "good" not subjective? Is there an ISO standard for "goodness"? Can I buy a good-o-meter to measure it?
Lame straw-man is lame straw-man.
No, they don't ALL have the same beliefs and motivations.
Just 95+ percent do.
Made up statistic is made up.
Yeah, it really is that simple. Why don't you simply listen to what the actual terrorist say? Do you REALLY believe some sheltered, white, suburban "progressive" twit in a US college knows what motivates a terrorist from Pakistan or Iran or Saudi Arabia better than the terrorist himself?
Boy it's really convenient that
a) all terrorists have exactly the same beliefs and motivations
b) all terrorists are completely honest and forthright about what those beliefs actually are
It sure makes my job of blindly hating them much easier.
You can mock the premise that wealth equates to wisdom or intelligence if you like but there is ample evidence of it being true. Perhaps it might be more accurate based on statistics available to equate an education to wealth...Tell me, how many of these wealthy 1% did not graduate high school? How many didn't graduate college?
I feel like you might be oversimplifying a complex, multi-faceted issue here. For example how many of those "well educated" 1%’ers were born to already affluent families? It's much easier to graduate high school when you can afford a private tutor. It's much easier to graduate college when you don’t have to also work a part time (or full time) job in order to afford the tuition.
Wouldn't they need to rely on honestly reported ages or validate age in some way in order to enforce their price discrimination?
95 cents per dollar pledged but not per dollar charged to the patron. As you say, the service fee is on top of the pledge amount.
So a patron makes 10 one dollar pledges. That's
$10 in pledges + (10 * $0.38 in transaction fees) = $13.80 charged to the patron.
The creators get $9.50 worth of pledges. $9.50 / $13.80 = 68.88%
Simple solution - Ban all online advertising and tracking
Yes, what could be simpler than convincing hundreds of different governments and / or private entities (depending on who you think will be enforcing this ban) to agree on a regulatory framework? Good luck with that.
If I may, I think I can propose an even simpler solution: If you don't like online advertising then don't visit sites that advertise. Problem solved.
Or do you insist they start a new department called Google Charity?
Technically they already did.
Tough shit, your 'convenience' should never be placed higher on your list of priorities in life above your safety,
This is why I always walk everywhere I go. Do you have any idea how many people die in car accidents every year?
</sarcasm>
Nah, that $4000 is virtual too. All money is virtual. The only real money is all gobbled up by collectors, because, well, it's actually REAL, as in made out of precious metals.
What makes you think precious metals are any more "real"? I mean, gold has a few useful industrial purposes, but generally speaking it's a shiny rock. The reason its valuable is the same reason any fiat currency is valuable (namely that people are willing to give you stuff in exchange for it).
Push all the coding you want. Won't magically make more American students capable of becoming good coders...Can't teach smart.
And how many really smart kids don't get in to coding because they've never been exposed to it and therefore don't realize it's something they would enjoy / be good at?
IMHO one of the things elementary and secondary education should seek to do is give students a broad exposure to many different subjects so that they can find where their skills and interests lie.
You do realize that the "Slashdot Community" is made up of many different people, right? It's entirely reasonable that some of them may (gasp!) disagree on a particular topic.
It only counts as hypocrisy if a single person espouses conflicting opinions.
You can't make use of a tool without understanding how it works
I know next to nothing about the workings of the internal combustion engine, and yet somehow I manage to drive my car to work every morning.
Noting that the climate is changing does not require a "control Earth". It's a simple observational exercise.
Making conclusions about what is causing those changes would be easier if we could conduct experiments which would ideally include a control group, but given that's not feasible, what is your alternative proposal? Should we ignore our observations, stick our heads in the sand and hope the whole thing goes away on it's own?
Tell that to the guy who can't get insurance because he Googled one too many medical conditions
Does such a person actually exist or are you just making up hypotheticals?
or the guy who lost his job because his employer snooped his facebook password from the "free" wifi in the employee lounge, and objected to his political "likes".
Again, assuming this actually happened, that sounds like an egregious privacy violation on the part of the employer (not to mention a flagrant violation of labor law), but I can't see how it's particularly a problem with Facebook. Unless you're argument is that people shouldn't be allowed to share their political views on line because unscrupulous employers might misuse that information.
They are not clear. Nowhere does Google and the rest give you a full list of what they're tracking you on. Even on their privacy terms, they only provide "examples".
https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity
Their pipe, their rules.
If they want to argue that their network is completely private property with which they are free to do what they please, then they can first forfeit any government granted right-of-way access to land they don't own. The reason network operators get free access to public and private land to run their pipes is that it's nominally in the public interest. If they don't want to operate in the public interest then they can go back to privately negotiating access rights with every individual land owner. Let me know how that works out for you.
I've heard anecdotally that many payment processors put language in their merchant agreements that explicitly prohibits charging a different price for card users specifically to prevent the merchant from discouraging card payments.
I'm not going to read the report...
But I am going to call it "ridiculous and retarded".
Damages. "They did thing X which cost me $Y. Give money pls." That's how civil lawsuits work.
IANAL but wouldn't I have to prove that "thing X" was wrong in some way before I would be entitled to damages. For a civil suit this usually means demonstrating either a civil infraction or a civil injury.
A civil infraction is defined as "a non criminal violation of a rule, ordinance, or statue". This does not apply because in this hypothetical scenario the polluter didn't break any law in the area where they were operating.
A civil injury is defined as "any physical harm or damage done to person or property by breach of contract, breach of duty, negligence, or by a criminal offense".
There was no contract between me and the polluter so breach of contract does not apply.
The polluter does not have any specific duty that they owe to me so breach of duty does not apply.
The polluter did not break any laws in the jurisdiction in which they operate so criminal offense does not apply.
That just leaves negligence. Negligence is defined as "[failure] to act as an ordinarily prudent person would act under the circumstances". I think you'd have a tough time making that argument in reference to a legitimate business that obeyed all the rules and regulations of the jurisdiction in which they were operating.
In reality, most states already regulate themselves pretty well, and cutting EPA funding for more climate change research...will have no effect
That may be. I'm far from an expert on what exactly the EPA is responsible for. If you'll notice I didn't say anything about what the EPA's funding should or shouldn't be. I was specifically responding to your assertion that it should be up to each state to determine what level of pollution they wanted to allow.
Trump will be re-elected, and you will remain eternally assblasted for all time.
Well, I'm Canadian, so that was probably a given in any event.
Handle those matters by suing the other state or the responsible parties for damages.
If there are no federal laws dictating what type of polluting is and is not allowed (which is what you're advocating for no?) then in what court do I sue them and on what grounds? They've broken no law in their state and they're not technically operating in mine.
How about you let the states figure out how toxic and polluted they want their state to be, instead of dictating it from Washington?
When the state next to mine pumps toxins into the air they don't magically stop at the state line. Isn't the federal government supposed to handle inter-state matters?
Deflation is bad. I will leave it as an exercise to the reader. I will feed you a couple of hints. What if you did nothing with your money and it increased in value? Would you buy anything?
Yes. Otherwise I'd starve to death.