The Constitution says "No law". Religious exemption sounds like a law regarding religion.
A Protestant would be mortified if a known Catholic judge asked them their religion. This is the same thing. Courts are prohibited from inquiries and special treatment based on a person's religion. If a judge can ask a question that can help them, then there's an answer that can hurt them. That's an unconstitutional denial of equal protection of the laws.
You really shouldn't need any law. Religious exemptions are unconstitutional... under the free exercise clause. Think about that for a moment. Why would that be the case? Well, consider how this goes down in court:
Defendant: I don't want to get this vaccination/serve this person/cut my hair/I want to smoke this cactus Judge: Why? Defendant: I have a religious reason Judge: What is your religion, and what does it say? Defendant: Objection! The First Amendment and the equal protection of the laws prohibits you from asking this, and the Fifth Amendment doesn't require I answer.
I don't think you understand what comparative advantage actually means. Comparative advantage is why two places can produce the same good and have it be economically beneficial to both even though one has an absolute price advantage. It has little to do with why building large cities in the middle of the desert is bat-shit crazy.
From the article you linked to, comparative advantage is related to marginal cost, which is a comparison of two goods. The law of comparative advantage says if the costs of production for the two goods are different, it will be advantageous for the two parties to specialize and trade, even if one party produces both goods at a lower absolute cost (money, labor, time, natural resources, any way you want to measure it).
Suppose the north produces very cheap water and electricity. Further suppose the southwest produces slightly more costly, but still fairly cheap electricity, and very costly water. Even though the southwest is disadvantaged in both markets, it still benefits both parties if the southwest produces only electricity and the north produces only water.
providing facilities for each gender that are suited to them but don't disadvantage or advantage either.
That's the problem. That's sexism.
You're providing services to individuals based on the traits stereotypically associated with their gender, whether or not the individual actually has any of those stereotypical qualities... that's sexism.
I like this idea. I'm thinking, though, once you've already programmed a rocket to be able to land in a particular place, getting it to land without tipping over isn't that much extra work, compared to the cost of building out an entire silo with spinning platform.
And I guess they wanted to stick with an ocean landing for some reason.
I run an Internet radio stream myself. I'm fully aware of T-Mobile's terms of the service, and they're not bad. But even if it was...
The thing about their plan is it's a voluntary part of their billing. They're not throttling anyone, they're not prioritizing traffic or dropping packets based on the source or destination.
There's no barrier to entry, it doesn't make it harder to get an Internet connection or start a new service. (Centralized distributers like YouTube, Google Play, Twitch.tv -- they do. They control their platform, they own the audience that you're trying to get exposed to, and if you want to access that audience, you're subject to their rules through and through.)
The only thing T-Mobile doing is footing the bill for shuttling data. What's not to like?
You're talking to someone who runs a 24/7 Internet radio stream. Network, routing, copyright, artists, library, website, the whole shebang. It's really not that hard to sign on with their program. But even if it was...
The thing about their plan is it's a voluntary part of their billing. They're not throttling anyone, they're not prioritizing traffic or dropping packets based on the source or destination.
The only thing they're doing is footing the bill for shuttling data. Paying for someone else's bills is always welcome in my book.
Not just that, but there's little evidence to suggest proper Internet access would even get more expensive. (At least for me, access to just one website is not "Internet access")
In fact, since this is a change in demand (not a change in quantity demanded), economics suggests the price should go down.
The only way it would go up is if it lures more people into buying Internet data plans... wouldn't that also be good?
You wouldn't say Apple has as strong or a stronger hold on the music and mobile phone markets? There's plenty of adequate competition for search engines.
If nobody else even knows about alternative search engines, you can't really hold Google liable for that, can you?
For all of the problems they listed, isn't Apple far bigger and far worse with said problems? Why do I need Apple hardware to merely develop iOS?
Isn't Android something of a problem? At least I can change search engines no-cost, who cares if they show a map with their search results (that's kind of what I'd want if I'm searching for a location or business, isn't it?). But Android has become progressively more closed-source, Google-specific, and if I want to adopt a different app store, that's going to cost $200 at least.
You're posting a lot of accusations in this thread today. Don't you have a job? Or is someone paying you to say such inflammatory things without positively contributing to the discussion?
The "Party Line" in TFA is the same "party line" of Slashdot: The FCC is tramples technological freedoms. They tell you what you can and cannot air on TV, they fine you when they think they see anything resembling a nipple (even in scrambled video), they tell you what you can and cannot use a telephone for, they lock down what devices you can connect to your wireless carrier with, they tell you when and when you can't record broadcast television. The list goes on and on.
Then to top it all off, the FCC decides it's going to start making and enforcing rules about Internet providers, without citing any prior problems, and we're supposed to roll over and believe them? Shoudn't they at least point to an ongoing violation and say "That's something we want to fix!"?
Shouldn't Congress, who is at least elected, be kind of wary that the FCC, unelected, is usurping their power here? Read the definitions, the Internet is plainly an Information Service; and in any event, an executive department is supposed to be enforcing rules, not writing them. Common law doesn't allow for the interoperation of the law to "change" on political whims: if the law was wrong before, it was always wrong. (This is why the courts can rule censorship laws unconstitutional, and retroactively so.)
Shouldn't we be just as concerned over who and how the rules are enforced, just as much as the rules themselves?
They're supposed to do that: The highest authority in the US are the state governments.
Local municipalities are formed by and subordinate to the state government, unless otherwise defined under the terms of the respective state's charters.
Likewise, Federal government was formed by and is subordinate to the state governments, within the confines and requirements as specified in the Constitution.
If in my universe, the only people who were both critical of the unchecked expansion of government power and welcoming of basic Internet engineering principles all at the same time, were those who were paid, I might reach the same conclusion.
Reality check, though: We're not in your universe anymore.
I don't get paid to post on Slashdot, and I doubt anyone else does, but even if I did, that doesn't justify a smear campaign.
The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), also known by some legislators as the "Great Cyberporn Panic of 1995", was the first notable attempt by the United States Congress to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In 1997, in the landmark cyberlaw case of Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court struck the anti-indecency provisions of the Act.
Slashdot Mirror
Since when did not letting the government discriminate on the basis of one's religion become fascist?
And SCOTUS has held that laws permitting inquiries as to a person's religion for the basis of determining guilt violates that.
Further, equal protection of the laws is the Fourteenth Amendment, and declining to answer such questions is the Fifth Amendment.
Article VI further prohibits religious tests for holding office. This theme is very well established.
The Constitution says "No law". Religious exemption sounds like a law regarding religion.
A Protestant would be mortified if a known Catholic judge asked them their religion. This is the same thing. Courts are prohibited from inquiries and special treatment based on a person's religion. If a judge can ask a question that can help them, then there's an answer that can hurt them. That's an unconstitutional denial of equal protection of the laws.
You really shouldn't need any law. Religious exemptions are unconstitutional... under the free exercise clause. Think about that for a moment. Why would that be the case? Well, consider how this goes down in court:
Defendant: I don't want to get this vaccination/serve this person/cut my hair/I want to smoke this cactus
Judge: Why?
Defendant: I have a religious reason
Judge: What is your religion, and what does it say?
Defendant: Objection! The First Amendment and the equal protection of the laws prohibits you from asking this, and the Fifth Amendment doesn't require I answer.
I don't think you understand what comparative advantage actually means. Comparative advantage is why two places can produce the same good and have it be economically beneficial to both even though one has an absolute price advantage. It has little to do with why building large cities in the middle of the desert is bat-shit crazy.
From the article you linked to, comparative advantage is related to marginal cost, which is a comparison of two goods. The law of comparative advantage says if the costs of production for the two goods are different, it will be advantageous for the two parties to specialize and trade, even if one party produces both goods at a lower absolute cost (money, labor, time, natural resources, any way you want to measure it).
Suppose the north produces very cheap water and electricity. Further suppose the southwest produces slightly more costly, but still fairly cheap electricity, and very costly water. Even though the southwest is disadvantaged in both markets, it still benefits both parties if the southwest produces only electricity and the north produces only water.
I don't have a problem with segregated schools, or gender or ethnic associations, per se.
I have a problem with doing it on the taxpayer dime. (Though I can't speak for Slashdot as a whole, but that seems to be the leaning.)
providing facilities for each gender that are suited to them but don't disadvantage or advantage either.
That's the problem. That's sexism.
You're providing services to individuals based on the traits stereotypically associated with their gender, whether or not the individual actually has any of those stereotypical qualities... that's sexism.
No one's gonna use this for donating to panhandlers (just to bump into them at the store buying more alcohol...)
The real use for this will be tip jars, purchasing products, mobile micropayments.
You think business is gonna see this technology and just sit on their hands?
Charge too high and that's "gouging"
Charge too low and that's "dumping"
Charge the same as everyone else and that's "collusion"
Is there anything that's not antitrust?
Charging per GB is OK.
Charging per month, unlimited is OK.
Charging per GB except certain kinds of services... not OK?
Antitrust is completely irrelevant here.
I like this idea. I'm thinking, though, once you've already programmed a rocket to be able to land in a particular place, getting it to land without tipping over isn't that much extra work, compared to the cost of building out an entire silo with spinning platform.
And I guess they wanted to stick with an ocean landing for some reason.
But a webmaster or web service is forced to use the Google product.
But mobile phone developer isn't "forced" to use Apple products?
I run an Internet radio stream myself. I'm fully aware of T-Mobile's terms of the service, and they're not bad. But even if it was...
The thing about their plan is it's a voluntary part of their billing. They're not throttling anyone, they're not prioritizing traffic or dropping packets based on the source or destination.
There's no barrier to entry, it doesn't make it harder to get an Internet connection or start a new service.
(Centralized distributers like YouTube, Google Play, Twitch.tv -- they do. They control their platform, they own the audience that you're trying to get exposed to, and if you want to access that audience, you're subject to their rules through and through.)
The only thing T-Mobile doing is footing the bill for shuttling data. What's not to like?
You're talking to someone who runs a 24/7 Internet radio stream. Network, routing, copyright, artists, library, website, the whole shebang. It's really not that hard to sign on with their program. But even if it was...
The thing about their plan is it's a voluntary part of their billing. They're not throttling anyone, they're not prioritizing traffic or dropping packets based on the source or destination.
The only thing they're doing is footing the bill for shuttling data. Paying for someone else's bills is always welcome in my book.
Not just that, but there's little evidence to suggest proper Internet access would even get more expensive. (At least for me, access to just one website is not "Internet access")
In fact, since this is a change in demand (not a change in quantity demanded), economics suggests the price should go down.
The only way it would go up is if it lures more people into buying Internet data plans... wouldn't that also be good?
I have 1GB of 4G-speed data with T-Mobile. I'm also a prolific streamer of Internet radio. For some parts of my work, it's required.
Now I get to run however much I like, wherever I am, and T-Mobile eats the costs, leaving bandwidth available for other, more important things.
What's there to protest?
No, you can install the official Windows development tools - including Windows itself - on almost any desktop there is.
Not so with iOS.
You wouldn't say Apple has as strong or a stronger hold on the music and mobile phone markets? There's plenty of adequate competition for search engines.
If nobody else even knows about alternative search engines, you can't really hold Google liable for that, can you?
For all of the problems they listed, isn't Apple far bigger and far worse with said problems? Why do I need Apple hardware to merely develop iOS?
Isn't Android something of a problem? At least I can change search engines no-cost, who cares if they show a map with their search results (that's kind of what I'd want if I'm searching for a location or business, isn't it?). But Android has become progressively more closed-source, Google-specific, and if I want to adopt a different app store, that's going to cost $200 at least.
You're posting a lot of accusations in this thread today. Don't you have a job? Or is someone paying you to say such inflammatory things without positively contributing to the discussion?
The "Party Line" in TFA is the same "party line" of Slashdot: The FCC is tramples technological freedoms. They tell you what you can and cannot air on TV, they fine you when they think they see anything resembling a nipple (even in scrambled video), they tell you what you can and cannot use a telephone for, they lock down what devices you can connect to your wireless carrier with, they tell you when and when you can't record broadcast television. The list goes on and on.
Then to top it all off, the FCC decides it's going to start making and enforcing rules about Internet providers, without citing any prior problems, and we're supposed to roll over and believe them? Shoudn't they at least point to an ongoing violation and say "That's something we want to fix!"?
Shouldn't Congress, who is at least elected, be kind of wary that the FCC, unelected, is usurping their power here? Read the definitions, the Internet is plainly an Information Service; and in any event, an executive department is supposed to be enforcing rules, not writing them. Common law doesn't allow for the interoperation of the law to "change" on political whims: if the law was wrong before, it was always wrong. (This is why the courts can rule censorship laws unconstitutional, and retroactively so.)
Shouldn't we be just as concerned over who and how the rules are enforced, just as much as the rules themselves?
They're supposed to do that: The highest authority in the US are the state governments.
Local municipalities are formed by and subordinate to the state government, unless otherwise defined under the terms of the respective state's charters.
Likewise, Federal government was formed by and is subordinate to the state governments, within the confines and requirements as specified in the Constitution.
If in my universe, the only people who were both critical of the unchecked expansion of government power and welcoming of basic Internet engineering principles all at the same time, were those who were paid, I might reach the same conclusion.
Reality check, though: We're not in your universe anymore.
I don't get paid to post on Slashdot, and I doubt anyone else does, but even if I did, that doesn't justify a smear campaign.
You can repeat yourself all you want, it doesn't make it true.
Did you bother to read my link?
Need any more citations?
You say you have hundreds of examples, yet you have yet to name one example. Just one example that the FCC rules would have stopped.
Just one.
Go on, I'm waiting.
Shill.