The EPA, DOE, and many other left wing laws are clearly unconstitutional
Not as clearly as you might think. There is this thing called the "elastic clause" in Article II Section 8 which says,
[The Congress shall have power...] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;...
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
So whether the EPA, DOE, and other "left wing" laws as you put it are Constitutional depends on whether "commerce" includes developing land, disposing of toxic waste, selling firearms, trafficking in drugs, distributing electricity, etc. etc. etc. I am sorry to rain on your parade but the SCOTUS has decided in various cases that indeed all those activities do constitute commerce and fall under the authority of Congress.
Now there is another relevant bit of the Constitution I like to call the the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
As I see it the Tenth Amendment should be taken into account when deciding whether something is "commerce" or not and applying the "elastic clause." As I see it there is a direct conflict between the Tenth Amendment and the elastic clause. Now given that the Constitution was not ratified in its original form and the states absolutely insisted on the Tenth Amendment being included before they would sign the Constitution, I think that of the two the Tenth Amendment should take priority. But that's just my opinion.
I am also of the opinion that when after due consideration the people want the government to do something that is not covered in Article II Section 8 they should amend the Constitution to grant that power to Congress. However the path of least resistance is to get the SCOTUS to keep stretching the definition of "commerce" and chanting "public interest."
The last eight years free of collapsing buildings seem to me a great indicator of its implicit uselessness. So why push it still?
It's useless for preventing terrorist attacks, but highly useful for helping government officials track a citizen's movements. Now they can use that power for good (more promptly serving arrest warrants) or evil (harassing political opponents as just one example). Anti-terrorism is a smokescreen. What RealID proponents really want, and won't stop until they get, is the 24/7 tracking of every person in the country.
In other words, getting paid is more important than human lives.
GP mentioned patient safety but didn't elaborate, so I will take the opportunity. Nurses are responsible for actually delivering most of the patient care in a hospital (nearly everything outside of the operating room). A good portion of a nurse's work is paperwork. Therefore, if nurses are swamped in paperwork, this has bad implications for the quality of patient care. The likelihood of a life-threatening medical mistake goes up.
Put another way, a backlog of paperwork overloads the hospital staff and reduces the number of patients they can competently treat.
So I think turning non-critical patients away from a hospital that is backed up with paperwork could be a positively useful step toward protecting patient safety, if done for that reast. Obviously you would want to still admit someone who's in cardiac arrest. Something less serious like a broken leg could be safely rerouted to another hospital that's not overloaded. The patient might grumble but in fact he may very well get treatment sooner by taking a road trip to the next town.
This looks to me like just the next step beyond DRM.
With DRM, you possess a copy but can only use it ways the copyright holder lets you. With this "streaming" model, you don't even possess the copy.
Probably the "industry insiders" think this is a way to get people to rent music instead of buying it (you pay for what you listen to, every time you listen). Good luck with that.
am I the only one that thinks prisoners should be put to work to offset some of that tax money being wasted on keeping them alive?
Well you're probably not the *only* one, but consider a couple of things:
1) International law takes a dim view of putting war prisoners into forced labor. It's not something you just go and do without expecting some major outcry from the international "community"
2) I wonder about the cost of guarding prisoners while they work, as opposed to the cost of guarding them in 23-hour lockdown, and whether putting them to work would really save any money.
Seriously, if you feel some sense of entitlement because you write software that other people use, a proprietary model is a more effective way to get what you deserve. Though note, what you actually deserve and what you think you deserve may not be the same thing...
The major publishing companies did everything they could short of shoving the e-books down the readers' throats for two years to get these things to work
Did they try:
Fair pricing? By this I mean e-books that cost substantially less than softcover books.
Preserving the first sale principle? By this I mean allowing someone who buys a copy of an e-book to format-shift it, make backup copies, or give the copy to a friend?
Speaking for myself, the reason I would never buy an e-book is that I think the publishers are overcharging for something that is not a physical object, and they're claiming that if I buy a copy of an e-book, I don't own that copy.
They want you to pay for a movie ticket, buy it on Blu-Ray, pay for DRM protected copy for your laptop and then pay for higher resolution DRM protected copy for your next laptop.
Optimist. They want Blu-Ray and all physical media to become obsolete, so they can implement a strong DRM regime where you have to pay for the movie every 10 times you view it, or every 6 months just to keep it around (or both).
Could it be that the reason both parties have waived their most obvious arguments is that they really want to the court to address the deeper questions and create a landmark ruling? In the long run such a ruling would reduce the amount of litigation surrounding (re)distribution of movies & music.
Could this, in fact, be a cry for help? Could both parties be saying, "Please, your Honor, give us a ruling that makes sense! Let us understand where the limits of copyright law really are!"
Although the SGI "brand" is still widely recognized, I am not convinced it has a lot of value. After all, if SGI had a whole lot of happy customers (left) then it would not be in the situation of being sold to WhatsItsName.
I am not sure I would want to chance the name of my company to something that makes people say, "Oh, wow, you're still around?" (especially given that I work for one of those)
Guestimating your yearly tax to be $6000, that's about $1000 per year.
Given that I pay $200/month for health insurance (in the U.S.) and my employer pays another $400, I would say he's getting quite a bargain -- especially considering the currency exchange rate.
But it STILL expires after a certain date, forcing you to buy it
Nonsense. Nothing can force you to buy it; you could always go back to your previous OS. This is like saying at the end of a test drive, you're "forced" to buy the car. Only if you want to keep using the new car!
A survey done by the MedPage today of 100 hospitals found that they would have to spend over $10,000 to comply with the Red Flag Rule.
In comparison with the operating budget of a typical hospital, I hardly think $10,000 is a major expense. They probably spend more than that waxing the floors every year.
What's the average cost incurred by a single victim of identity fraud? Last I heard it was over $5k. So for the hospital to save its petty $10k in implementation costs, how many patients are they willing to screw over? (All of 'em, it seems.)
The Obama administration is likely to soon propose creating a senior White House computer-security post to coordinate policy and a new military command that would take the lead in protecting key computer networks from intrusions, according to senior officials.
So the solution is to create new high-level posts in the government. Somehow I am skeptical that this will quickly and thoroughly solve the problem.
Actually, the FBI can't tell the difference between a criminal and a suspected criminal. In the U.S., it takes a jury (or a guilty plea) to do that.
I think your point though is that it's not a violation of someone's rights if the FBI has reasonable evidence *before* they install the Trojan, and it appears they did in this case (because they had a warrant).
Amtrak have to lease access to rail lines from freight haulers.
When I took Amtrak from Boston to Chicago, the train arrived four hours late because of delays due to slow freight ahead. So parent is completely right, this is a major part of the problem.
Even better would be to ferry the cars along those rails so you can drive as needed once you reach your destination.
By definition you wouldn't need a highway-capable car at the destination, so glorified golf cart would probably do.
I would love to see a future where people use lightweight, low-speed vehicles for tooling around town, and load those vehicles onto railroad cars for long-distance travel.
Slashdot Mirror
Not as clearly as you might think. There is this thing called the "elastic clause" in Article II Section 8 which says,
So whether the EPA, DOE, and other "left wing" laws as you put it are Constitutional depends on whether "commerce" includes developing land, disposing of toxic waste, selling firearms, trafficking in drugs, distributing electricity, etc. etc. etc. I am sorry to rain on your parade but the SCOTUS has decided in various cases that indeed all those activities do constitute commerce and fall under the authority of Congress.
Now there is another relevant bit of the Constitution I like to call the the Tenth Amendment:
As I see it the Tenth Amendment should be taken into account when deciding whether something is "commerce" or not and applying the "elastic clause." As I see it there is a direct conflict between the Tenth Amendment and the elastic clause. Now given that the Constitution was not ratified in its original form and the states absolutely insisted on the Tenth Amendment being included before they would sign the Constitution, I think that of the two the Tenth Amendment should take priority. But that's just my opinion.
I am also of the opinion that when after due consideration the people want the government to do something that is not covered in Article II Section 8 they should amend the Constitution to grant that power to Congress. However the path of least resistance is to get the SCOTUS to keep stretching the definition of "commerce" and chanting "public interest."
That's just trolling. I almost fell for it, but decided not to feed the troll.
It's useless for preventing terrorist attacks, but highly useful for helping government officials track a citizen's movements. Now they can use that power for good (more promptly serving arrest warrants) or evil (harassing political opponents as just one example). Anti-terrorism is a smokescreen. What RealID proponents really want, and won't stop until they get, is the 24/7 tracking of every person in the country.
What I say to this is, if you're not doing anything wrong ... then where you are and what you're up to are none of the government's damned business.
GP mentioned patient safety but didn't elaborate, so I will take the opportunity. Nurses are responsible for actually delivering most of the patient care in a hospital (nearly everything outside of the operating room). A good portion of a nurse's work is paperwork. Therefore, if nurses are swamped in paperwork, this has bad implications for the quality of patient care. The likelihood of a life-threatening medical mistake goes up.
Put another way, a backlog of paperwork overloads the hospital staff and reduces the number of patients they can competently treat.
So I think turning non-critical patients away from a hospital that is backed up with paperwork could be a positively useful step toward protecting patient safety, if done for that reast. Obviously you would want to still admit someone who's in cardiac arrest. Something less serious like a broken leg could be safely rerouted to another hospital that's not overloaded. The patient might grumble but in fact he may very well get treatment sooner by taking a road trip to the next town.
This looks to me like just the next step beyond DRM.
With DRM, you possess a copy but can only use it ways the copyright holder lets you. With this "streaming" model, you don't even possess the copy.
Probably the "industry insiders" think this is a way to get people to rent music instead of buying it (you pay for what you listen to, every time you listen). Good luck with that.
Well you're probably not the *only* one, but consider a couple of things: 1) International law takes a dim view of putting war prisoners into forced labor. It's not something you just go and do without expecting some major outcry from the international "community" 2) I wonder about the cost of guarding prisoners while they work, as opposed to the cost of guarding them in 23-hour lockdown, and whether putting them to work would really save any money.
Bill Gates called and wants his moral high ground back.
Seriously, if you feel some sense of entitlement because you write software that other people use, a proprietary model is a more effective way to get what you deserve. Though note, what you actually deserve and what you think you deserve may not be the same thing...
That's not for lack of trying, though.
Are flash drives an open standard or are they also encumbered by patents?
Did they try:
Speaking for myself, the reason I would never buy an e-book is that I think the publishers are overcharging for something that is not a physical object, and they're claiming that if I buy a copy of an e-book, I don't own that copy.
Optimist. They want Blu-Ray and all physical media to become obsolete, so they can implement a strong DRM regime where you have to pay for the movie every 10 times you view it, or every 6 months just to keep it around (or both).
Could it be that the reason both parties have waived their most obvious arguments is that they really want to the court to address the deeper questions and create a landmark ruling? In the long run such a ruling would reduce the amount of litigation surrounding (re)distribution of movies & music.
Could this, in fact, be a cry for help? Could both parties be saying, "Please, your Honor, give us a ruling that makes sense! Let us understand where the limits of copyright law really are!"
Nah. Sounds too logical to be true.
Although the SGI "brand" is still widely recognized, I am not convinced it has a lot of value. After all, if SGI had a whole lot of happy customers (left) then it would not be in the situation of being sold to WhatsItsName.
I am not sure I would want to chance the name of my company to something that makes people say, "Oh, wow, you're still around?" (especially given that I work for one of those)
Nope. Someone pointing a gun at you doesn't force you it a particular course of action, it only narrows your options.
The guy who said that is dead now.
Given that I pay $200/month for health insurance (in the U.S.) and my employer pays another $400, I would say he's getting quite a bargain -- especially considering the currency exchange rate.
Nonsense. Nothing can force you to buy it; you could always go back to your previous OS. This is like saying at the end of a test drive, you're "forced" to buy the car. Only if you want to keep using the new car!
In comparison with the operating budget of a typical hospital, I hardly think $10,000 is a major expense. They probably spend more than that waxing the floors every year.
What's the average cost incurred by a single victim of identity fraud? Last I heard it was over $5k. So for the hospital to save its petty $10k in implementation costs, how many patients are they willing to screw over? (All of 'em, it seems.)
How would you know? ;-)
(Sorry, nothing personal, I just couldn't resist.)
Sounds like they could afford to put one or two of these guys on salary, then.
So the solution is to create new high-level posts in the government. Somehow I am skeptical that this will quickly and thoroughly solve the problem.
Actually, the FBI can't tell the difference between a criminal and a suspected criminal. In the U.S., it takes a jury (or a guilty plea) to do that.
I think your point though is that it's not a violation of someone's rights if the FBI has reasonable evidence *before* they install the Trojan, and it appears they did in this case (because they had a warrant).
TFA says the FBI had a warrant. When that is the case, I *want* them to be able to own a suspect's machine.
When I took Amtrak from Boston to Chicago, the train arrived four hours late because of delays due to slow freight ahead. So parent is completely right, this is a major part of the problem.
By definition you wouldn't need a highway-capable car at the destination, so glorified golf cart would probably do.
I would love to see a future where people use lightweight, low-speed vehicles for tooling around town, and load those vehicles onto railroad cars for long-distance travel.