Aren't they supposed to recuse themselves if they have a bias, monetary interest in the issue or relation with either plaintiff or defendant? Isn't this rather basic legal practice to try and ensure impartiality? If that is the case then taken at face value the judge and plaintiff had a relationship that the judge should have recused himself for. Refusing to bring this relationship to light is a serious breach although not corruption per se it should definitely warrant an investigation and at the minimum bring the judgement of the case into question.
Of course, back then, you worked till the day you died, since there was no Social Security.
Or you bought your house outright and saved your money for retirement like a responsible adult would. Just as an example putting that money directly into a 3% APR passbook savings account would likely return more than putting into Social Security. You might want to look at something like this for some detailed numbers: http://www.inmessment.com/finance/is-social-security-a-good-investment-lets-review-the-numbers/
And that would be quite soon if you got sick and didn't happen to be wealthy, since there was no Medicare or Medicaid.
I again refer to the link above for return on investment. In addition there is a strong case to be made that medicare and medicaid pervert the natural cost and procedures used. What they are willing to pay for gets used whether it is the best way to do it or not (insurance also has this effect). This in the end increases the overall cost of healthcare. It has gotten so bad that doctors don't even know what the cost of the procedures they order are thereby removing any chance of controlling expense or cost while treating a problem. If you don't believe go to your general practicioner and ask them for EXACT pricing. Many will provide an estimate that is off by almost 30 - 40% because the cost has risen that much since they last knew them.
And let's not forget that there were no food stamps or WIC checks, so if you were poor, you were liable to starve.That is, if you didn't rob or kill to get your food.
And there were no battered women shelters, or protections of any sort for abuse victims.
Yes, you are correct there was nothing like charities, local community groups (lions, jaycees, kiwanis, etc) that did anything to help out those in need. Most of those groups are gone or almost inactive now because the government stepped in to handle it. Good thing to because there is no waste, fraud or other negative effects from a system that HAS to provide for people even if they have a huge number of kids to get more from the state for it. Go live near a housing project and tell me food stamps are a great idea. I used to see people sell them for 30 - 50 cents on the dollar in most of the local grocery stores so they could by items not covered when I was a student. All these things used to be covered by charities and local community social organisations. Additionally, according to your premise as taxes rose crime should decrease. I'm not and expert but this doesn't seem to agree with that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
And there were no regulations to stop companies from dumping all sorts of nasty shit into your air or water, or outright putting it into your food as filler.
These laws could be made anyway and the EPA funded by excise taxes and/or hefty fines for companies that violated the rules. You do realise that before there was income tax there was a large government surplus, right? It's before all these programs we "authorised" under the reinterpretation of "the general welfare" clause. As it is now company fines are considerably less than the profits from the violations. I point to the gulf spill, fracking, valdez and BP oil spills, divesting of GM's useful assets from all the environmentally damaged sites leaving them to be left as is with no real chance of funding for proper cleaning as clear examples of how large companies are not held accountable for the environmental damage they do. These same issues apply to FDA which is now self funded by the companies that apply for product approval and has led to using carbon monoxide to keep meat red to fool customers, BPA still allowed in many containers even baby bottles, BHT in
This is not necessarily a bad thing. Especially when looking at the national level of government there probably should not be so many laws at that level. Your example of sanitary regulations are a good example. Basic environmental protections seem necessary to implement on a national level but specific rules needed to meet these could vary from city to city. Direct democracy could work on a level where there are less issues but of much greater impact. It will also be a natural hedge against having too many laws at that level by requiring a certain minimal percentage vote from the population for the law to pass. I'm not saying this would work but it does warrant research IMO.
1. has suspended Habeas Corpus
2. has taken and imprisoned citizenry from the street without being charged with a crime or receiving due process
3. allows police to detain and strip search anyone for any accusation
4. has not followed it's own laws for electing a president (see bush vs gore)
I'd say it's safe to assume the rule of law in the U.S. is long gone. When you've discarded the highest law in the land (the constitution) so blatantly and completely what law exactly is there left to respect? These are not "problems with institutions" but rather a complete and intentional disregard for the law as stated. This is not to mention the unending general surveillance of it's people which is rather clearly protect by that same constitution. What exactly do you require to classify it as beyond the rule of law?
I can't speak to the case of the U.K. since I am ignorant of the specifics of the laws there but I suspect there is some basis for the protection of liberties and privacy of the people in the law there. How that reconciles with what seems to be the population under the greatest surveillance by their government is beyond me.
How do you weigh the advantage of knowing a 10 year old windows interface compared to:
1. Having a recent updated Linux distro for the life of the laptop
2. Having access to free apps like office, graphic arts, CAD, programming, networking servers, databases, etc, etc, etc,
3. Having a platform that exposes how things work to the curious mind (source code, as well as the general way programs are done all give more "behind the scenes" info)
It really is a question of what you get in return for that investment. Learning to use a broad set of tools and adjusting to a slightly different interface (which you will probably need to do anyway) or familiarizing yourself with an interface and specific implementation. For me, I'd choose the broad base. you may chose the narrow path. The optimum would likely depend more on the current age of the student (narrow giving a quicker return for older students that are closer to entering the workforce).
Wow, this is so amazingly bad for everyone involved. It is clearly something that can be abused to "punish" almost anyone an officer wants to. Read the news about the TSA abusing the scanners to scan pretty women and imagine how bad things can get with this new power.This is only going to make people trust, like and support the police less here. Those that have the means and are bothered a lot by this will just move away. Those who cannot or will not might be encouraged to find justice in alternative ways.
I can see an awful potential for people moving toward a "make their own justice mentality". I know if I had a kid and some cop pulled them over and forced them to go through something as degrading as this for no real offense I would make it a point to deal out a good measure of justice to them and everyone involved. I'm not the violent sort but would be willing to get surveillance and gather enough information to cause as much trouble for the office, the searcher and anyone else involved to disrupt their life significantly. I'd be willing to make a significant investment of time and money to bring this about too. It's not in my nature to let people trample my rights like this and walk away unscathed. I can't believe I am alone in this feeling either. That's not good for the police, the searchers, or even the supreme court justices that voted for this thing. I know if I ran a bar, restaurant or any public establishment I would take down their names and forbid serving them in my place. That's how strongly I feel this is great injustice to the country.
I agree with the parent and have a hard time seeing the problem with this app. From the article this is information the participants are freely making available. If anything I think this just exposes a poor choice in default sharing on the part of FB/Foursquare. I suspect a change in default privacy for foursquare would fix this issue entirely. Then, as the parent mentioned, the women/men who want to meet new people this way could. I see no harm in that.
I should mention I've never used this app, FB or foursquare but have seen friends use FB and foursquare have a rudimentary understanding of them..
So if I was to point out that people have safely deccelerated 50 mph in 100 ft (saw on a roller coaster or something) does that mean you shouldn't hit the break before crashing into a wall? At what point IS there enough evidence that the change is significant enough to actually DO something about? Scientists have been telling us this, we SEE this change rapidly coming, it has a global effect and all indications are that reduced solar activity is actually masking the true effects, what more does it take?. I am not a climatologist but there seem to both increases in the range of severe weather as well as the general upward warming trend globally. Is saying people have always commented on "strange weather" supposed to justify dismissing ALL changes as natural? Was there other explanations for what happened in the 1500s (solar activity changes, increased vulcanization, etc.)?
Then there is the other side of this. If you are incorrect and we do ignore it and are the cause then what do you propose we do about it? We've just taken a manageable situation and pushed it to the point the cost will be orders of magnitude greater and might not be manageable at all given the current tech level and social will. If we "overreact" and move quickly to a lower carbon economy the downside will be increased cost and less than optimized production efficiency then again it just might improve the economy. You may have noticed the high price of oil's cooling effect on the economy.
This could simply be a case of slowly turning up the heat on the pot until the lobster boils. Will we be smart enough to turn it down or not? Seems there are plenty of people that think it's just a hot tub party which wouldn't be so bad if they would let the rest of us get out.
Not sure about anyone else but they will be loosing me as a customer.
Sprint just raised prices mid-contract (only $5/mo but it could have been $1000 from the terms of the contract). When I called to get clarification they pointed me to the clause in the contract that says this: "We may change any part of the Agreement at any time, including, but not limited to, rates, charges, how we calculate charges, discounts, coverage, technologies used to provide services, or your terms of Service." They then will give you 30 days from the time of first notice (which is made on page 4 of the bill 30 days before the price is raised so by the time you see the price change you are already passed the 30 days) to drop Sprint if you wish. Of course that means sending back the $200 phone I paid for and getting nothing in return (no return charge and no phone). Basically this says is I am stuck with the agreement but really get nothing from it. They can change the price, length of contract, anything at any time and if I make changes then I get an early termination fee.
The long and short is I am stuck with Sprint but will be moving away from them upon contract end and will never go back. I don't like to do business with companies that operate like this. I read the contract before but somehow must have missed this gem of a clause. I won't make that mistake again. It may be just me but any company that would ask the customers to sign something like this is no company I want to be doing business with. For the customer you are basically agreeing to pay an unknown amount if you quite (they can change that too you know) for an unknown amount of time at an unknown price. The simple fact that they have not raised you monthly rate to $1000/month and extended you term to 10 years with a $5000 ETF does not mean they legally can not. To sign something like this is simply foolish IMO. A mistake I do not intend to repeat.
The fact that this price raise might be to cover new iphone subsidies just adds insult to injury. Next time I will buy my phone outright and use only prepaid services. The terms of service for all carriers are much too long to even bother with. Just another way that U.S. business is at a disadvantage compared to many other countries.
Shouldn't there be an injured party for it to be a criminal offense? Kind of hard to see who got injured in the making or possessing of a comic book but maybe it's just me.
Well, I don't know about that so much. After all most engineers interface with clients to determine needs and create specs for what they are going to do. I do do a bit of selling some ideas but having worked on big projects that really does go on in the teams anyway at least from my experience. Considering the bulk of my time (75+%) is designing and implementing the technical solutions I still consider myself an engineer, I do IT (networking, servers, policies, etc) so not sure if you consider that engineering or not. I can't really see doing the job with much less interaction but then again most of my clients now are small to medium businesses so I do everything from architecting the solution to implementing and documenting it.
As for me being the kind of person big companies want to hire full time that depends. Like one of the parents or GPs said though most of the big companies want cheaper labor for full time and I like the contracting role anyway. More change and challenges as well as a wider variety of experience.
I will take being a doer over a talker any day of the week. Even if it means I have to take a hit in pay. That said I've never really struggled that much with getting enough clients to keep myself busy. Like many others have said small business is much more rewarding than big business. Then again if you are only in it for the money I probably don't want you working for me anyway. Just my take on things,
I agree 100% against there being mommy laws BUT I don't think any of these are mommy laws. I run down each one to make it clear why I do not see them as mommy laws.
#1, #6 Basically rules the fed will make to maximise the return on it's investment dollars. They have total authority under the constitution and are actually tasked with this job. #1 will not effect private schools or any organization not not getting federal funding. It doesn't force anyone to do anything and is a measure to increase results from the amount of money the government is spending on schools. There are numerous studies to support this by the way and many schools are just starting to do this for the sole purpose of increased results. This is much like the military physical fitness requirement for all it's people only less strict. People can still go outside and purchase these items and they are not banned from being sold anywhere except inside federally funded institutions and buildings. Again this is a measure to get more productivity out of federal dollars. I do not see this as a mommy law since it will not force the public at large to do anything and it is a no different than a private company implementing the same rules for their break rooms. It will likely however encourage some fast food places to change their menus to be allowed to open a store inside these locations. Some will likely keep that same menu for locations outside thereby giving people a wider spectrum of options to choose from (currently there are very few healthy, cheap food options). We have seen these kinds of changes when the military changes it's buying requirements and like ROHS implemented in the EU. The EU law gets implemented in goods destined for the U.S. because economy of scale makes it easier to produce 1 product rather than 2. I suspect the same will hold true for foodstuff products.
#2 is a law that requires you inform the consumer what they are buying so they can make smart choices. It's really no different than and ingredient list for food you buy in the store. Are you against that too?
#3 is an EPA basic law. Studies have shown bisphenol A is POISON. Are you also against laws that prohibit lead in paint? It also is a slow leaching poison that may even contaminate water and soil for many years to come. It has been shown to lead to all sorts of problems not just loss of focus/intelligence. If this is a mommy law then all basic EPA protections are as well.
#4 is to remove the current skew toward grains by removing their subsidies and letting the market price things where they should be. This is not forcing people to change their diet only aligning the cost of grains and starches with where they should be by removing the relatively high cost of vegetables and fruits (which are not subsidised nearly as much). I'm all for removing all the subsidies and letting the market work as it should. I'm not sure if you were agreeing with this or not but I really don't see how this can be a mommy law. If anything it is getting rid of a law that encourages poor nutrition.
#5 you seem to agree with getting rid of since it is basically a corporate purchased law to stop informing the consumer of what they are buying.
Now just so I am clear on where you stand exactly which ones do you consider mommy laws?
Hopefully some country will stand up and just say NO to all IP. No copyright, no patents, nothing. When that happens that will be the place to invent and produce things. Eventually, people will want crap that works at a fraction of the price and will just buy stuff there and take them back to their home countries. It may take a few more years to get this done but when the IP costs of manufacturing get to the 25% cost level this will become attractive. You can always export to patent abiding countries or resellers and let them add the markup later, however, producing in a litigious country will mean you need to pay the markup on every unit, even the ones going to patent free countries.
I did the same thing many years back. If you really want to see how the legal system works challenge a speeding ticket in court. You think you have rights and the judge is impartial? Go to a trial and watch them break all the laws and trample those rights. I am totally serious even the most simple and basic things go out the window. The Judge and prosecutor are on the same team and you have little to no chance to even make a valid case. They will also threaten you with contempt of court and deny you the opportunity to video tape the proceedings (to show others what the system really is like). It was a great $200 real world lesson for me and I recommend it to everyone. That way you know the reality of the system you are living under not the illusion like most people have.
I found an easy way to deal with this. I call it the first one's free approach. The first time a family member or friend needs a reinstall of windows I do it free. The second time they move to Linux or go to best buy. It's pretty simple and right now 75% are on Linux. Linux is also considerably easier to upgrade (the home dir is left intact during upgrades unlike on Windows). My support has gone down to about 2 hours per user per year which I am willing to do. The bulk of support for most users is spyware/adware/viruses. If I can cut that out completely then support really becomes manageable. Now I get more bad router/firewall issues than PC support. To solve this I've moved most of them to a standardized wrt54g w/ 8GB flash and 16GB ram running DD-WRT. If something goes bad I just flash a new router and replace it (which has happened once across the 20+ deployed over several years). Don't even need to go on-site, they come pick it up.. Compared to almost any commercial router this support is very low.
As for clients that argue over the bill, I've never had that happen. Of course I have a policy that I will usually (there may be extenuating circumstances where I wouldn't) refund their last invoice if they are unhappy with the understanding that I will not work with them again. I have had never has a client take me up on that yer nor have they argued over the bill. Maybe it's because I work on server and networking or maybe it's because they usually save a considerable amount after an initial outlay but I suspect it mostly has to do with setting expectations before you start the work. The market really is not as bad as you make it out to be. It is, however, flooded with a ton of MS raised desktop support people who believe in the reinstall, rinse, repeat approach rather than actually troubleshooting the real issue. These people can run up extraordinary bills with little to show for the work.
The desktop arena may be a bit more challenging but if framed right even that is manageable. For example relay the actual cost of using IE and Outlook to the clients this will set expectations for how often machines will need to be re-imaged to get rid of spyware, viruses which you WILL get. Best of luck to you, I do feel your pain only now it's a lot less for me due to moving my responsibilities to FLOSS. I now get to raise my shoulders right off when people as for vista or win 7 support since I've never used either. Mind you Ubuntu and the whole Gnome 3 fiasco is a major PIA for me right now so there are still some problems but most of the work formulating a resolution is also shared across my client base so it's not a total loss.
I follow your logic but disagree with your conclusion. In particular where you say "there's really nothing to be done other than what has already been done". So if for example we find smoking on average moves the middle 100 of that curve down even 3 IQ points (scale picked as example) and we find that by taxing cigarettes $3/pack that we get an overall decrease in smoking corresponding to 1.5 IQ points then implementing a tax like that will quite simply raise the center of the curve by 1.5 points. You talk about statistical probabilities yet seem to totally disregard scientific findings that shows the statistic (albeit crude) impact on that center of curve, not to mention the distribution. Here are some quick things that could be done to raise that center of curve:
-Ban sugary soft drinks and heavily processed sugary snacks from federally funded schools (make it a condition of funding)
-Force all plastics to specify their component compounds especially in food packaging and containers
-Ban the use of bisphenol A in food packaging/containers or even outright
-Stop subsidies on corn and grain production thereby bringing vegetable to grains/meat cost ratio down
-Remove foolish laws that stop producers from marking their products as being BHT free (as is/was the case in many states)
-Refuse to let non-healthy food establishments have space in any federal building (set nutrition standards and don't allow food vendors in if they are not met)
All these things are simple measures that could be started today and phased in within 5 -7 years. To say we are currently doing all we can now is quite simply incorrect. I would also guess it would have a measurable effect on that curve. Mind you I am not opposed to your suggestion and think it is wise to study and pursue that as well but I think this much more likely to have an non-trivial effect on the center of curve in a much shorter time frame as well as with a much lower overall cost. As I mentioned before even with DNA selection for higher intelligence this will be beneficial.
I generally have a libertarian tendency but do think environmental regulation should necessarily must be done by the governments. The rest of these measures are all internal government management, conditions of funding or removal of current laws so do not force the citizenry to do anything.
I think you might find there are a lot of studies that indicate our current environment is pushing that 100 lower. Whereas it does not really make people less intelligent it does destroy concentration and focus which can have much the same effect (especially when testing for it). Things like nutrition, chemicals from plastics (google bisphenol A) and other things are moving that 100 line. Before we go fixing all the DNA we might want to address these environmental issues first. They are the lower hanging fruit and the problems from them will still exist even if you tweak the DNA.
According to the article "Under this scheme, publishers set the price of a book". Bang, full stop. Right there the publisher has set the price across the entire market. If this is not price fixing, what is? The fact that the prices for most books across publishers shows collusion and is a rather obvious basis for anti-trust. That said I look around at the rampant price fixing and the penalties for it that are less than the profits made by doing it (RAM price fixing anyone?) so I don't expect it to change. This is an extension of the current business model which is to gain a monopoly and milk your customers for all they have once you got it. The monopoly is now created by any one of: true monopolies (single access to resource), colluded monopolies (price fixing, cartel dealings), artificial monopolies (patents, legal hindrance, software data lock-in). Maybe it's just me but I see it in the U.S. in everything: cell phone providers, ISPs. online music, tech components, ebooks, software (quickbooks is the worst), consumer electronics, auto parts, gasoline and fuel costs, and on and on and on. It is how big business operates and the primary reason I try to deal more and more with small businesses.
Couldn't agree more. Scrap ALL patents and see how it really effects innovation after 10 years. Then if it is not helping you can always bring the system back or recreate a new one.
I agree with pretty much everything you said but point out one problem: where are new forms of government being tested? It seems much of the world believes democracy is the end all, do all of political systems.
I don't think most people even understand the characteristics of each type of system. Most people in the U.S. think they are in a true democracy rather than a democratically elected representative republic. While it is much more of a democracy with the citizenry directly electing senators now it is still far from a true democracy. This is also the case in most countries that I have lived in. Many European countries tends to favor democratically elected parliamentary systems but most of them are generally classified as "democracies".
Personally, I'd really like to see someone try a system where the citizenry has to earn the right to vote. Maybe a year of military or social service in order to earn the right to vote. It would be interesting to see if the people who want to vote bad enough to give up some time would make more informed voters. I also suspect that besides the inability to understand many people simply do not invest the time to research candidates relying on advertising to help them make their choice.
And his crime was the worst you can make: not respecting big, rich monopoly corporations. If he just stole from people that would be no problem but he had the audacity to help people steal from the likes of Comcast and other sacred cows. From the article it sounds like he didn't even steal anything just basically sold a lockpick set and showed people how to use it. Gotta love the face of modern business/politics and yes there are basically one thing now.
I was in complete agreement right up to where you said it is the ONLY protocol with these properties. There are many other systems with these same properties some even more primitive than the one you stated. Such as using the same basic system but instead of a ballot giving one stone that the voter drops into one of two sealed bins with a drop hole in an otherwise empty room. Only stones from voters are allowed to enter and exit the room. It;s slightly different but used as an example that the statement of it being the ONLY protocol is incorrect. I make this point because thinking it is the only way means you will never advance it and if that never happens the system of voting necessarily can not advance. Without better tools having first, second and third choice voting with instant runoff is not practical. Other than this statement I agree with the rest of your post.
Slashdot Mirror
Aren't they supposed to recuse themselves if they have a bias, monetary interest in the issue or relation with either plaintiff or defendant? Isn't this rather basic legal practice to try and ensure impartiality? If that is the case then taken at face value the judge and plaintiff had a relationship that the judge should have recused himself for. Refusing to bring this relationship to light is a serious breach although not corruption per se it should definitely warrant an investigation and at the minimum bring the judgement of the case into question.
Of course, back then, you worked till the day you died, since there was no Social Security.
Or you bought your house outright and saved your money for retirement like a responsible adult would. Just as an example putting that money directly into a 3% APR passbook savings account would likely return more than putting into Social Security. You might want to look at something like this for some detailed numbers: http://www.inmessment.com/finance/is-social-security-a-good-investment-lets-review-the-numbers/
And that would be quite soon if you got sick and didn't happen to be wealthy, since there was no Medicare or Medicaid.
I again refer to the link above for return on investment. In addition there is a strong case to be made that medicare and medicaid pervert the natural cost and procedures used. What they are willing to pay for gets used whether it is the best way to do it or not (insurance also has this effect). This in the end increases the overall cost of healthcare. It has gotten so bad that doctors don't even know what the cost of the procedures they order are thereby removing any chance of controlling expense or cost while treating a problem. If you don't believe go to your general practicioner and ask them for EXACT pricing. Many will provide an estimate that is off by almost 30 - 40% because the cost has risen that much since they last knew them.
And let's not forget that there were no food stamps or WIC checks, so if you were poor, you were liable to starve.That is, if you didn't rob or kill to get your food.
And there were no battered women shelters, or protections of any sort for abuse victims.
Yes, you are correct there was nothing like charities, local community groups (lions, jaycees, kiwanis, etc) that did anything to help out those in need. Most of those groups are gone or almost inactive now because the government stepped in to handle it. Good thing to because there is no waste, fraud or other negative effects from a system that HAS to provide for people even if they have a huge number of kids to get more from the state for it. Go live near a housing project and tell me food stamps are a great idea. I used to see people sell them for 30 - 50 cents on the dollar in most of the local grocery stores so they could by items not covered when I was a student. All these things used to be covered by charities and local community social organisations. Additionally, according to your premise as taxes rose crime should decrease. I'm not and expert but this doesn't seem to agree with that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
And there were no regulations to stop companies from dumping all sorts of nasty shit into your air or water, or outright putting it into your food as filler.
These laws could be made anyway and the EPA funded by excise taxes and/or hefty fines for companies that violated the rules. You do realise that before there was income tax there was a large government surplus, right? It's before all these programs we "authorised" under the reinterpretation of "the general welfare" clause. As it is now company fines are considerably less than the profits from the violations. I point to the gulf spill, fracking, valdez and BP oil spills, divesting of GM's useful assets from all the environmentally damaged sites leaving them to be left as is with no real chance of funding for proper cleaning as clear examples of how large companies are not held accountable for the environmental damage they do. These same issues apply to FDA which is now self funded by the companies that apply for product approval and has led to using carbon monoxide to keep meat red to fool customers, BPA still allowed in many containers even baby bottles, BHT in
This is not necessarily a bad thing. Especially when looking at the national level of government there probably should not be so many laws at that level. Your example of sanitary regulations are a good example. Basic environmental protections seem necessary to implement on a national level but specific rules needed to meet these could vary from city to city. Direct democracy could work on a level where there are less issues but of much greater impact. It will also be a natural hedge against having too many laws at that level by requiring a certain minimal percentage vote from the population for the law to pass. I'm not saying this would work but it does warrant research IMO.
The government of the U.S:
1. has suspended Habeas Corpus
2. has taken and imprisoned citizenry from the street without being charged with a crime or receiving due process
3. allows police to detain and strip search anyone for any accusation
4. has not followed it's own laws for electing a president (see bush vs gore)
I'd say it's safe to assume the rule of law in the U.S. is long gone. When you've discarded the highest law in the land (the constitution) so blatantly and completely what law exactly is there left to respect? These are not "problems with institutions" but rather a complete and intentional disregard for the law as stated. This is not to mention the unending general surveillance of it's people which is rather clearly protect by that same constitution. What exactly do you require to classify it as beyond the rule of law?
I can't speak to the case of the U.K. since I am ignorant of the specifics of the laws there but I suspect there is some basis for the protection of liberties and privacy of the people in the law there. How that reconciles with what seems to be the population under the greatest surveillance by their government is beyond me.
Good thing we're not eating that stuff. Who knows what it might do to us. I'm sure they studied that effect first though *end sarcasm*
How do you weigh the advantage of knowing a 10 year old windows interface compared to:
1. Having a recent updated Linux distro for the life of the laptop
2. Having access to free apps like office, graphic arts, CAD, programming, networking servers, databases, etc, etc, etc,
3. Having a platform that exposes how things work to the curious mind (source code, as well as the general way programs are done all give more "behind the scenes" info)
It really is a question of what you get in return for that investment. Learning to use a broad set of tools and adjusting to a slightly different interface (which you will probably need to do anyway) or familiarizing yourself with an interface and specific implementation. For me, I'd choose the broad base. you may chose the narrow path. The optimum would likely depend more on the current age of the student (narrow giving a quicker return for older students that are closer to entering the workforce).
Wow, this is so amazingly bad for everyone involved. It is clearly something that can be abused to "punish" almost anyone an officer wants to. Read the news about the TSA abusing the scanners to scan pretty women and imagine how bad things can get with this new power.This is only going to make people trust, like and support the police less here. Those that have the means and are bothered a lot by this will just move away. Those who cannot or will not might be encouraged to find justice in alternative ways.
I can see an awful potential for people moving toward a "make their own justice mentality". I know if I had a kid and some cop pulled them over and forced them to go through something as degrading as this for no real offense I would make it a point to deal out a good measure of justice to them and everyone involved. I'm not the violent sort but would be willing to get surveillance and gather enough information to cause as much trouble for the office, the searcher and anyone else involved to disrupt their life significantly. I'd be willing to make a significant investment of time and money to bring this about too. It's not in my nature to let people trample my rights like this and walk away unscathed. I can't believe I am alone in this feeling either. That's not good for the police, the searchers, or even the supreme court justices that voted for this thing. I know if I ran a bar, restaurant or any public establishment I would take down their names and forbid serving them in my place. That's how strongly I feel this is great injustice to the country.
I agree with the parent and have a hard time seeing the problem with this app. From the article this is information the participants are freely making available. If anything I think this just exposes a poor choice in default sharing on the part of FB/Foursquare. I suspect a change in default privacy for foursquare would fix this issue entirely. Then, as the parent mentioned, the women/men who want to meet new people this way could. I see no harm in that.
I should mention I've never used this app, FB or foursquare but have seen friends use FB and foursquare have a rudimentary understanding of them..
So if I was to point out that people have safely deccelerated 50 mph in 100 ft (saw on a roller coaster or something) does that mean you shouldn't hit the break before crashing into a wall? At what point IS there enough evidence that the change is significant enough to actually DO something about? Scientists have been telling us this, we SEE this change rapidly coming, it has a global effect and all indications are that reduced solar activity is actually masking the true effects, what more does it take?. I am not a climatologist but there seem to both increases in the range of severe weather as well as the general upward warming trend globally. Is saying people have always commented on "strange weather" supposed to justify dismissing ALL changes as natural? Was there other explanations for what happened in the 1500s (solar activity changes, increased vulcanization, etc.)?
Then there is the other side of this. If you are incorrect and we do ignore it and are the cause then what do you propose we do about it? We've just taken a manageable situation and pushed it to the point the cost will be orders of magnitude greater and might not be manageable at all given the current tech level and social will. If we "overreact" and move quickly to a lower carbon economy the downside will be increased cost and less than optimized production efficiency then again it just might improve the economy. You may have noticed the high price of oil's cooling effect on the economy.
This could simply be a case of slowly turning up the heat on the pot until the lobster boils. Will we be smart enough to turn it down or not? Seems there are plenty of people that think it's just a hot tub party which wouldn't be so bad if they would let the rest of us get out.
Not sure about anyone else but they will be loosing me as a customer.
Sprint just raised prices mid-contract (only $5/mo but it could have been $1000 from the terms of the contract). When I called to get clarification they pointed me to the clause in the contract that says this: "We may change any part of the Agreement at any time, including, but not limited to, rates, charges, how we calculate charges, discounts, coverage, technologies used to provide services, or your terms of Service." They then will give you 30 days from the time of first notice (which is made on page 4 of the bill 30 days before the price is raised so by the time you see the price change you are already passed the 30 days) to drop Sprint if you wish. Of course that means sending back the $200 phone I paid for and getting nothing in return (no return charge and no phone). Basically this says is I am stuck with the agreement but really get nothing from it. They can change the price, length of contract, anything at any time and if I make changes then I get an early termination fee.
The long and short is I am stuck with Sprint but will be moving away from them upon contract end and will never go back. I don't like to do business with companies that operate like this. I read the contract before but somehow must have missed this gem of a clause. I won't make that mistake again. It may be just me but any company that would ask the customers to sign something like this is no company I want to be doing business with. For the customer you are basically agreeing to pay an unknown amount if you quite (they can change that too you know) for an unknown amount of time at an unknown price. The simple fact that they have not raised you monthly rate to $1000/month and extended you term to 10 years with a $5000 ETF does not mean they legally can not. To sign something like this is simply foolish IMO. A mistake I do not intend to repeat.
The fact that this price raise might be to cover new iphone subsidies just adds insult to injury. Next time I will buy my phone outright and use only prepaid services. The terms of service for all carriers are much too long to even bother with. Just another way that U.S. business is at a disadvantage compared to many other countries.
Shouldn't there be an injured party for it to be a criminal offense? Kind of hard to see who got injured in the making or possessing of a comic book but maybe it's just me.
Well, I don't know about that so much. After all most engineers interface with clients to determine needs and create specs for what they are going to do. I do do a bit of selling some ideas but having worked on big projects that really does go on in the teams anyway at least from my experience. Considering the bulk of my time (75+%) is designing and implementing the technical solutions I still consider myself an engineer, I do IT (networking, servers, policies, etc) so not sure if you consider that engineering or not. I can't really see doing the job with much less interaction but then again most of my clients now are small to medium businesses so I do everything from architecting the solution to implementing and documenting it.
As for me being the kind of person big companies want to hire full time that depends. Like one of the parents or GPs said though most of the big companies want cheaper labor for full time and I like the contracting role anyway. More change and challenges as well as a wider variety of experience.
I will take being a doer over a talker any day of the week. Even if it means I have to take a hit in pay. That said I've never really struggled that much with getting enough clients to keep myself busy. Like many others have said small business is much more rewarding than big business. Then again if you are only in it for the money I probably don't want you working for me anyway. Just my take on things,
I agree 100% against there being mommy laws BUT I don't think any of these are mommy laws. I run down each one to make it clear why I do not see them as mommy laws.
#1, #6 Basically rules the fed will make to maximise the return on it's investment dollars. They have total authority under the constitution and are actually tasked with this job. #1 will not effect private schools or any organization not not getting federal funding. It doesn't force anyone to do anything and is a measure to increase results from the amount of money the government is spending on schools. There are numerous studies to support this by the way and many schools are just starting to do this for the sole purpose of increased results. This is much like the military physical fitness requirement for all it's people only less strict. People can still go outside and purchase these items and they are not banned from being sold anywhere except inside federally funded institutions and buildings. Again this is a measure to get more productivity out of federal dollars. I do not see this as a mommy law since it will not force the public at large to do anything and it is a no different than a private company implementing the same rules for their break rooms. It will likely however encourage some fast food places to change their menus to be allowed to open a store inside these locations. Some will likely keep that same menu for locations outside thereby giving people a wider spectrum of options to choose from (currently there are very few healthy, cheap food options). We have seen these kinds of changes when the military changes it's buying requirements and like ROHS implemented in the EU. The EU law gets implemented in goods destined for the U.S. because economy of scale makes it easier to produce 1 product rather than 2. I suspect the same will hold true for foodstuff products.
#2 is a law that requires you inform the consumer what they are buying so they can make smart choices. It's really no different than and ingredient list for food you buy in the store. Are you against that too?
#3 is an EPA basic law. Studies have shown bisphenol A is POISON. Are you also against laws that prohibit lead in paint? It also is a slow leaching poison that may even contaminate water and soil for many years to come. It has been shown to lead to all sorts of problems not just loss of focus/intelligence. If this is a mommy law then all basic EPA protections are as well.
#4 is to remove the current skew toward grains by removing their subsidies and letting the market price things where they should be. This is not forcing people to change their diet only aligning the cost of grains and starches with where they should be by removing the relatively high cost of vegetables and fruits (which are not subsidised nearly as much). I'm all for removing all the subsidies and letting the market work as it should. I'm not sure if you were agreeing with this or not but I really don't see how this can be a mommy law. If anything it is getting rid of a law that encourages poor nutrition.
#5 you seem to agree with getting rid of since it is basically a corporate purchased law to stop informing the consumer of what they are buying.
Now just so I am clear on where you stand exactly which ones do you consider mommy laws?
You say that the effect is a few points but there is little actual data to support that. They DO know that removing sugars from schools makes a rather pronounced increase in testing. See http://www.schoolhouseearth.org/sfs_program.html and http://articles.cnn.com/2008-12-11/health/sugar.free.school_1_school-day-test-scores-national-blue-ribbon-school?_s=PM:HEALTH . 10 - 15% is not a few points, it's more like 10 and that is just from the sugar alone. How much all these effects will b
Hopefully some country will stand up and just say NO to all IP. No copyright, no patents, nothing. When that happens that will be the place to invent and produce things. Eventually, people will want crap that works at a fraction of the price and will just buy stuff there and take them back to their home countries. It may take a few more years to get this done but when the IP costs of manufacturing get to the 25% cost level this will become attractive. You can always export to patent abiding countries or resellers and let them add the markup later, however, producing in a litigious country will mean you need to pay the markup on every unit, even the ones going to patent free countries.
I did the same thing many years back. If you really want to see how the legal system works challenge a speeding ticket in court. You think you have rights and the judge is impartial? Go to a trial and watch them break all the laws and trample those rights. I am totally serious even the most simple and basic things go out the window. The Judge and prosecutor are on the same team and you have little to no chance to even make a valid case. They will also threaten you with contempt of court and deny you the opportunity to video tape the proceedings (to show others what the system really is like). It was a great $200 real world lesson for me and I recommend it to everyone. That way you know the reality of the system you are living under not the illusion like most people have.
I found an easy way to deal with this. I call it the first one's free approach. The first time a family member or friend needs a reinstall of windows I do it free. The second time they move to Linux or go to best buy. It's pretty simple and right now 75% are on Linux. Linux is also considerably easier to upgrade (the home dir is left intact during upgrades unlike on Windows). My support has gone down to about 2 hours per user per year which I am willing to do. The bulk of support for most users is spyware/adware/viruses. If I can cut that out completely then support really becomes manageable. Now I get more bad router/firewall issues than PC support. To solve this I've moved most of them to a standardized wrt54g w/ 8GB flash and 16GB ram running DD-WRT. If something goes bad I just flash a new router and replace it (which has happened once across the 20+ deployed over several years). Don't even need to go on-site, they come pick it up.. Compared to almost any commercial router this support is very low.
As for clients that argue over the bill, I've never had that happen. Of course I have a policy that I will usually (there may be extenuating circumstances where I wouldn't) refund their last invoice if they are unhappy with the understanding that I will not work with them again. I have had never has a client take me up on that yer nor have they argued over the bill. Maybe it's because I work on server and networking or maybe it's because they usually save a considerable amount after an initial outlay but I suspect it mostly has to do with setting expectations before you start the work. The market really is not as bad as you make it out to be. It is, however, flooded with a ton of MS raised desktop support people who believe in the reinstall, rinse, repeat approach rather than actually troubleshooting the real issue. These people can run up extraordinary bills with little to show for the work.
The desktop arena may be a bit more challenging but if framed right even that is manageable. For example relay the actual cost of using IE and Outlook to the clients this will set expectations for how often machines will need to be re-imaged to get rid of spyware, viruses which you WILL get. Best of luck to you, I do feel your pain only now it's a lot less for me due to moving my responsibilities to FLOSS. I now get to raise my shoulders right off when people as for vista or win 7 support since I've never used either. Mind you Ubuntu and the whole Gnome 3 fiasco is a major PIA for me right now so there are still some problems but most of the work formulating a resolution is also shared across my client base so it's not a total loss.
I follow your logic but disagree with your conclusion. In particular where you say "there's really nothing to be done other than what has already been done". So if for example we find smoking on average moves the middle 100 of that curve down even 3 IQ points (scale picked as example) and we find that by taxing cigarettes $3/pack that we get an overall decrease in smoking corresponding to 1.5 IQ points then implementing a tax like that will quite simply raise the center of the curve by 1.5 points. You talk about statistical probabilities yet seem to totally disregard scientific findings that shows the statistic (albeit crude) impact on that center of curve, not to mention the distribution. Here are some quick things that could be done to raise that center of curve:
-Ban sugary soft drinks and heavily processed sugary snacks from federally funded schools (make it a condition of funding)
-Force all plastics to specify their component compounds especially in food packaging and containers
-Ban the use of bisphenol A in food packaging/containers or even outright
-Stop subsidies on corn and grain production thereby bringing vegetable to grains/meat cost ratio down
-Remove foolish laws that stop producers from marking their products as being BHT free (as is/was the case in many states)
-Refuse to let non-healthy food establishments have space in any federal building (set nutrition standards and don't allow food vendors in if they are not met)
All these things are simple measures that could be started today and phased in within 5 -7 years. To say we are currently doing all we can now is quite simply incorrect. I would also guess it would have a measurable effect on that curve. Mind you I am not opposed to your suggestion and think it is wise to study and pursue that as well but I think this much more likely to have an non-trivial effect on the center of curve in a much shorter time frame as well as with a much lower overall cost. As I mentioned before even with DNA selection for higher intelligence this will be beneficial.
I generally have a libertarian tendency but do think environmental regulation should necessarily must be done by the governments. The rest of these measures are all internal government management, conditions of funding or removal of current laws so do not force the citizenry to do anything.
I think you might find there are a lot of studies that indicate our current environment is pushing that 100 lower. Whereas it does not really make people less intelligent it does destroy concentration and focus which can have much the same effect (especially when testing for it). Things like nutrition, chemicals from plastics (google bisphenol A) and other things are moving that 100 line. Before we go fixing all the DNA we might want to address these environmental issues first. They are the lower hanging fruit and the problems from them will still exist even if you tweak the DNA.
I think you are 93% correct. Unfortunately, that is only 32% of the time.
According to the article "Under this scheme, publishers set the price of a book". Bang, full stop. Right there the publisher has set the price across the entire market. If this is not price fixing, what is? The fact that the prices for most books across publishers shows collusion and is a rather obvious basis for anti-trust. That said I look around at the rampant price fixing and the penalties for it that are less than the profits made by doing it (RAM price fixing anyone?) so I don't expect it to change. This is an extension of the current business model which is to gain a monopoly and milk your customers for all they have once you got it. The monopoly is now created by any one of: true monopolies (single access to resource), colluded monopolies (price fixing, cartel dealings), artificial monopolies (patents, legal hindrance, software data lock-in). Maybe it's just me but I see it in the U.S. in everything: cell phone providers, ISPs. online music, tech components, ebooks, software (quickbooks is the worst), consumer electronics, auto parts, gasoline and fuel costs, and on and on and on. It is how big business operates and the primary reason I try to deal more and more with small businesses.
Couldn't agree more. Scrap ALL patents and see how it really effects innovation after 10 years. Then if it is not helping you can always bring the system back or recreate a new one.
I agree with pretty much everything you said but point out one problem: where are new forms of government being tested? It seems much of the world believes democracy is the end all, do all of political systems.
I don't think most people even understand the characteristics of each type of system. Most people in the U.S. think they are in a true democracy rather than a democratically elected representative republic. While it is much more of a democracy with the citizenry directly electing senators now it is still far from a true democracy. This is also the case in most countries that I have lived in. Many European countries tends to favor democratically elected parliamentary systems but most of them are generally classified as "democracies".
Personally, I'd really like to see someone try a system where the citizenry has to earn the right to vote. Maybe a year of military or social service in order to earn the right to vote. It would be interesting to see if the people who want to vote bad enough to give up some time would make more informed voters. I also suspect that besides the inability to understand many people simply do not invest the time to research candidates relying on advertising to help them make their choice.
And his crime was the worst you can make: not respecting big, rich monopoly corporations. If he just stole from people that would be no problem but he had the audacity to help people steal from the likes of Comcast and other sacred cows. From the article it sounds like he didn't even steal anything just basically sold a lockpick set and showed people how to use it. Gotta love the face of modern business/politics and yes there are basically one thing now.
I was in complete agreement right up to where you said it is the ONLY protocol with these properties. There are many other systems with these same properties some even more primitive than the one you stated. Such as using the same basic system but instead of a ballot giving one stone that the voter drops into one of two sealed bins with a drop hole in an otherwise empty room. Only stones from voters are allowed to enter and exit the room. It;s slightly different but used as an example that the statement of it being the ONLY protocol is incorrect. I make this point because thinking it is the only way means you will never advance it and if that never happens the system of voting necessarily can not advance. Without better tools having first, second and third choice voting with instant runoff is not practical. Other than this statement I agree with the rest of your post.