Or you could just use OSX and Time Machine and have it do auto backups for you. No need to nag unless it can't reach the backup server.
That would require you to think about backups, and pro-actively set up time machine. You've been able to automate backups on most operating systems for over a decade, if you were inclined to to so.
Windows 7 actually suggests that setting up backups is something you should do, and flags it as an issue if you don't.
Honest mistake? "No outside research" seems pretty straightforward to me.
Not to me. I get that I'm not supposed to read the news or do any reasearch into the case I'm sitting in.
What if I'm researching something else entirely but it gives me insight into the case... mistrial? What if I'm reading a science fiction comic book and I gain an insight into the case as a result... mistrial?
If I'm a normal joe-six pack in a copyright trial, and I open a document on my computer I don't think I've made a copy. I've never really thought about it. And in my head, I'm not thinking of that as a copy. Even if they said that I should think of it as one, that never really sunk in.
So there I am working on the document, and I inadvertantly open the document again. Well, what do you know... all the changes I've made aren't there... and I have this epiphany that the original document is still there... and that the document I'm working on with "unsaved changes" is actually a separate copy. Eureka... I understand things in a whole new way.
So if you make a little software program and it takes you 30 hours at, say, $60/hour...charge $1800 for it. That way, when someone "steals" it, you can sue that single person and get your money back.
If an electrician spends 30 hours wiring a building at, say, $60/hour... he charges $1800 and then goes home. He doesn't get another nickle every time someone flicks a switch. What makes your 30 hours of work worth a potentially infinite amount of money, while his caps out at $1800?
Where the electrician differs from someone writing the program is that he's got a contract in place for $1800 bucks. He doesn't have to wire the building, and then hope someone shows up to pay him something.
But perhaps the software developer can learn from the electrician... raise the 1800$ first from future users (whether you find 1000 of them to pay $1.80... or 100 of them who want it badly enough to pay $18, then write and release the software, and then it doesn't matter how many copies get made.
And then offer to support the software, or build additional features for $. And live off that.
The point is that in a world where anyone and everyone can make copies for free, you can't have a business model where you charge for copies. Its not going to work. Your role in the new economy is producing the original... you have to figure out how to get paid enough for doing that to motivate you to do it.
How is it that someone has a laptop where important files aren't backed up...
People don't think about backups. I actually like Windows 7's backup nag... i think that's probably gotten more backups done than anything anyone else has done in the history of computers.
If you're just relying on a Firewall to block access to ports you shouldn't have open anyways, then yeah, you don't need the firewall: just close the ports. But in that scenario, it's really just a misapplication of an otherwise useful security device.
Not really. Redundancy and backup systems are an important part of security.
. I'm sure Apple can do the same with OSX, but I'm unsure about the whole patent issue when it comes to Linux.
Can, but probably won't. Firefox reproduces core functionality already provided by Safari.;)
That said, its unclear to me why a 3rd party couldn't do it, they wouldn't need an h264 patent license to connect firefox to the h264 codec already licensed and present on the computer would they?
As for linux, same thing... if one has an h264 codec, then the plug in should be doable. I don't offhand know much about the availability of h264 on linux... i use linux... but primarily for servers... usually headless or virtualized... so h264 support hasn't come up much.:)
Actually I am for Heathcare Reform and against Obama's proposal. The best option wasn't presented.
The only issue i have with your post is that. I agree the best option wasn't presented. I'd rather see them make an improvement, rather than do nothing at all because its not perfect.
We got the best option they could pass, and I think its an improvement. If you are against every proposal that isn't the best proposal, then you will never be for anything that might actually pass.
MOST people don't have that much cash. And VERY FEW could afford two hits like that in succession. What do people do when they CAN'T pay?
Supplement that with: Catastrophic insurance.
Mandatory catastrophic insurance? Or is this optional? If its mandatory, how does it differ from Obamacare exactly? If its optional... what happens to people without it?
When you develop a serious illness like cancer that exceeds some minimum (say $50,000) then the company will cover your bills and "save" you from being bankrupted.
What company? Not everyone is employed.
As for poor people, I'd simply use Welfare to pay their bills. Or some other safety net. We don't need to Force everyone into a government-run program.
Welfare can't pay those bills, unless welfare gets an increased budget. Do you favor a tax increase to cover government funded health care for those who cannot afford it?
Just the bottom ~5% that are too poor to help themselves. A net. The rest of us would not need the net, so we would receive no government assistance
Depending on the illness, the bottom 80% may be too poor to help themselves, especially if they selected an inadequate insurance premium. What happens if they aren't covered / properly covered? Do we bankrupt them, put them welfare, and then pay it out of the government welfare program you propose?
Freedom of Choice is preferable to being treated like a child too dumb to make his/her own decisions.
One can't simply decide to have enough money to afford adequate insurance. One can't decide the insurance company will cover you while you are unemployed. One can't decide to be eligible for affordable coverage if the insurance company deems you a high risk. And many people do have pre-existing conditions - they don't need and can't get "insurance" they ALREADY are sick. They need healthcare, and they can't decide how much it will cost them.
I had a mommy & daddy...
How nice for you. Many people didn't. Many people had really irresponsible parents that made really bad decisions. Is that their fault?
So FREEDOM is the better option PLUS the government-safety net I outlined above (welfare, medicare, food stamps, and so on) to help the bottom 5%.
a) So any one with a pre-existing condition has the freedom to go bankrupt and live on welfare? b) Anyone who has the freedom to make a good decision, but makes a bad one and has inadequate health insurance is free to go bankrupt and live on welfare. c) Everyone above welfare but not wealthy is one medical incident away from being on welfare.
We can't evaluate the methodology because the methodology hasn't been published
That counts as evaluating it, and finding it missing. Big point against its credibility.:)
the tests compared bleeding edge releases of IE9 to an obsolete versions of Chrome
This much at least is factually incorrect. This study was done *in* September 2010. Chrome 6 was released September 2nd, 2010. Chrome 7 wasn't released until October 21st. What version do you think they should have used?
You appear to have fallen for Googles extremely rapid primary version number changes. Version 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and the preview of 9 have ALL been released in 2010.
The inherent conflict of interest taints the study to the point where it will never be possible clear it of enough doubt to make the data useful.
But in nearly any situation the parties interested in paying for studies have an interest. In the health sector at least there is enough public money floating around to fund some research... but in IT? Who is going to pay for the work?
All "independant" review sites host advertising from these companies, some of them are more blatantly biased than others but the 'taint' of the potential for a conflict of interest colors all of them. If you are going to demand there be no conflict of interest then you aren't going to get any studies at all.
I believe that most people who will be influenced by this kind of report are NOT in a position to methodically evaluate the test methodology.
Fair enough.
So when Microsoft (or McDonalds or the US Govt or Buy n Large) claim research that shows their product is superior to others, the reader gets one claim stuck in their head and it is repeated as fact*.
Fair enough. But the real problem here is twofold: a) a news media happy to regurgitate press releases without doing any sort of journalistic investigation b) a populace that largely lacks the ability or even desire to think critically -- as you mentioned
Of course if we fixed b) I think a) would largely take care of itself.
Microsoft citing a third party study is an appeal to an external authority. The claim is that Microsoft is trying to get their opinion on their own browser credibility by having it come from a mouthpiece that isn't first party.
That is why it raises a red flag. Credibility is questionable.
Its also possible that Microsoft commissioned a 3rd party because they actually wanted an independent study done, perhaps because they lacked the in house expertise or resources to do an internal one properly, perhaps because a internal one is even less credible than a funded 3rd party one.
We can and should be skeptical of Microsoft funded studies.
There is no analogous complaint to be made about Google, because they aren't trying to complain about the study by hiring an external firm to make the complaint.
Fair comment. However google's statements remain suspect because they also have a clear conflict of interest. It is in their interest to discredit the study, so their criticisms likewise raise the "red flag" of questionable credibility.
The study arguably has that particular problem because Microsoft paid for it...
But Microsoft paying for it isn't what invalidates the study. We can't stop our investigation at "Microsoft paid for it. Ergo its flawed." We have to actually find a flaw. After finding the flaw, you can arguably trace the flaw back to conflict of interest from funding, but a funding conflict of interest itself isn't enough to conclude there is a flaw.
While Wikileaks has been big news, there's nothing really new or innovative about it that hasn't been done before.
True of facebook too, or have we all forgotten myspace, friendster, linkedin, etc...
It just happened to be the recipient of the news scoop of the decade
To be fair, they've taken some heat over it. They could have just caved when the pressure mounted. A lot of their newsworthiness is a result of their tenacity to keep it up.
Bradley Manning
Perhaps, but right now, he's still just alleged person of the year.
Just because Google's criticism of the study's claim isn't coming from a neutral third party doesn't mean Microsoft paying for a study that praises its own browser shouldn't set off all sorts of red flags concerning the validity of the study,
Who said it shouldn't set off red flags. It sets off a red flag, but it doesn't justify complete disregard of the study. Additionally Google's statements about the study should set off the VERY SAME red flags about googles statements.
especially when "[...]the list of actual URLs used for testing was not made available to the vendors or to the public, so there's no way to independently verify the results."
That's a red herring. It is a very good reason to significantly reduce the credibility of the study. However, it is completely unrelated to who paid for it, now isn't it?
I didn't dispute the conclusion regarding the quality of the study. I only disputed the quality of the argument leading to that conclusion.
"Microsoft paid for it. That's all I need to know." is a poor argument.
I can only be skeptical of the faceless Microsoft rep.
Agreed. Skepticism of every studies conclusion is healthy and necessary. However outright disregard for a study based on a single data point: "who paid for it" is not.
Yes necessarily. If they are recording your password in a way that can be retrieved as plain-text then the possibility exists for a massive breach that will leak all username/password pairs.
It may be well "secured", but the fact that it exists at all is a problem.
So the police tried to help them out. But the protestors simply didn't want to listen. It's like any other major city thoroughfare - if you want to march down, say, third avenue in New York or Broad Street in Philadelphia or Theobald's Road in the Bloomsbury section of London, it's disruptive and has to be properly planned out. Detours and road closures so you don't get carnage, for instance.
What you are describing is a "parade" not a "protest".
Its like how I've been protesting my strata's holiday decorations policy. They passed a bylaw saying that all outdoor holiday lights had to be a matching blue, with no blinking. Originally I was going to put up my red/white/green blinky strings as a protest, but my application to do so to the strata was declined, but I've been authorized by them to protest by putting the red/green/white blinkies in my windowless bathroom. What's more they are supposed to come down by the 15th of January, but I can leave them there until February.
You see, its not really a "protest" if there is no disruption. That's the entire point of a protest.
You want to see a protest? Piss off a 4 year old. They get it.
It reads aloud what is on the screen, such as the labels on the icons, and the user doubletaps anywhere on the screen to select one.
It sounded to me more like he double tapped on the screen where he wanted something read, suggesting that he could see well enough to know things were there.
He also specifically mentioned that he was able to use stock -CHARTS-; I admit I don't know a lot about voiceover, but it struck me that some level of vision would be necessary to process a stock chart.
And the response from google criticizing it was by someone right on google's payroll representing google's interests. I guess we can ignore their criticism then too?
Or perhaps we should let the work stand for itself, evaluate the methodology, strip away the marketing spin, and come away with some nugget of truth, regardless of who funded it. Of course that's "work".
I've heard they really love the iPhone. Here is an example article.
Reading that article tells me that the enthusiastic user isn't blind. He's legally blind.
One of the problems/. (and the world in general) has with blindness is that we forget that many (perhaps even most??) of the people categorized as blind can still see. They just see very poorly.
However, in terms of accessibility of devices, and things like internet access its a huge difference. We think of the blind and then try to imagine someone ourselves operating a touch screen with our eyes closed and no tactile feedback at all and naturally scoff at the absurdity of it.
But try squinting your eyes almost shut so you can still see the phone, but can't read anything on it. Your now "legally bind", but you can still make out the little blobs for the apps... you can pick them out easily by touch -- identifying them by position and colour. A bit of slick software to read out the text you that you can see is there but can't actually make out by double-tapping it... and voila... a very useful device.
I still don't see a relevant distinction for the purposes of providing healthcare.
Welfare of the states "themselves" is the welfare of its citizens in aggregate.
If Jim gets stick the state's welfare is not affected, but if the citizens of the state are systematically and collectively ill due to a plague the state's welfare can be reduced to a state of emergency. Somewhere between those extremes clearly the collective health and well being of the citizens is the well-being of the state.
If universal health care collectively improves citizens health, the drains from lost productivity to reduced emergency health care expenses leads to higher overall productivity and properity to the state.
You can't really argue that the population is somehow de-linked from the welfare of the state itself.
Yes, it can be disruptive. People can still go in and out, but they have to walk past the picketers.
If you think I'm an asshole, you are within your rights to picket my house. You can stand outside, not on the property, with a sign and let people know, including people who come to visit.
Hmm... so how do i picket an online store. I can't let people know who come to visit because nobody physically shows up.
However, if you try to block me from entering my house, the police will come and remove you and charge you with a crime. You can't prevent me from going where I want.
If a LOT of people show up to picket you, you can still go in and out, but they are going to tie up street, and slow things down. Exactly like DDoS. DDoS doesn't stop the site from working, it just clogs things up getting in and out because of all the people around.
If a lot of people are picketing, and it clogs things up, that's disruptive... and entirely legal.
Not that I actually think DDoS is the equivalent to picketing. But it does bother me that picketing can be so neatly disabled by simply taking away all the public space. Freedom to assemble and protest doesn't have a lot of meaning if there isn't any public space.
Its already come up a few times that politcos have exploited this, by leasing their property, and then telling protestors they can't assemble because its private property not public property and "the landlord doesn't want them there". Its only a matter of time before we privatize roads and then ban marches as tresspassing on private property.
1) The power to tax is there to pay the government's bills and provide for the general welfare of the nation, not its citizens.
How does the general welfare of the nation not include its citizens? Take away the citizens and who exactly are you governing anyway? And who is doing this governing?
2) The OP specifically exempted taxes, which your clause covers
Yep, essentially congress can institute full on European style health care; but it can't mandate people buy into a private one.
Either we have a Constitution, and it applies, or it does not. Can you tell me, exactly where in the Constitution, Congress has the authority to require people to spend any money on anything, save for taxes?
Congress has the authority to collect taxes to provide for the general welfar of the united states. The power to tax for healthcare is a pretty reasonable interpretation of the first power outlined in the Powers of Congress.
But your right, that doesn't give them the power to make people buy private healthcare.
That's going to fall to the interstate commerce clause...
If you clamor about the Commerce Clause I'll scream that Health Insurance is NOT interstate commerce, it is specifically NOT interstate. I can't buy health insurance from Nevada.
Why not?
Follow the line of reasoning carefully.
Typically it goes something like this...
Fear that allowing residents to purchase health out-of-state health insurance would lead to a decline in the number of healthy people covered under in-state health insurance plans, and result in increasing premiums for those who remain.
Another concern was it would lead to far more insurance scams, as the state insurance regulators would have less control over what was being marketed to residents.
And from an administrative standpoint, they state insurance regulatory body would have increased paperwork and expenses, as they would have had to stay abreast of plan design and pricing in multiple states, rather than just the state plans they currently oversee.
Looks pretty clear to me that that the reason you have that limitation is a failure of the state to embrace interstate commerce. Congress is empowered to regulate interstate commerce, and this seems like an issue they actually should be getting involved with. Healthcare is clearly an interstate commerce issue. The fact that you can't buy insurance from Nevada proves it. States aren't really supposed to be enforcing restricted trade amongst themselves.
But that is besides the point, you want universally bad health care for everyone, so Constitution be damned.
Nobody wants universally bad health care, just as nobody wants a universally bad military. They want a They want to fund a good military and a good health care program.
And the constitution actually clearly provides for that.
What we apparently can't have is mandated private health care for everyone.
So to provide universal healthcare constitutionally they have to add in the public option, raise taxes to pay for it, and then people can of course purchase private insurance where ever they like if they prefer. Hmmm... that sounds familiar, exactly what the democrats asked for.
It was only the compromises that were made that removed the public option that resulted in the unconstitutional thing we have now.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you could just use OSX and Time Machine and have it do auto backups for you. No need to nag unless it can't reach the backup server.
That would require you to think about backups, and pro-actively set up time machine.
You've been able to automate backups on most operating systems for over a decade, if you were inclined to to so.
Windows 7 actually suggests that setting up backups is something you should do, and flags it as an issue if you don't.
Honest mistake? "No outside research" seems pretty straightforward to me.
Not to me. I get that I'm not supposed to read the news or do any reasearch into the case I'm sitting in.
What if I'm researching something else entirely but it gives me insight into the case... mistrial?
What if I'm reading a science fiction comic book and I gain an insight into the case as a result... mistrial?
If I'm a normal joe-six pack in a copyright trial, and I open a document on my computer I don't think I've made a copy. I've never really thought about it. And in my head, I'm not thinking of that as a copy. Even if they said that I should think of it as one, that never really sunk in.
So there I am working on the document, and I inadvertantly open the document again. Well, what do you know... all the changes I've made aren't there... and I have this epiphany that the original document is still there... and that the document I'm working on with "unsaved changes" is actually a separate copy. Eureka... I understand things in a whole new way.
Ooops... mistrial...?
Lets attack the root of the problem:
So if you make a little software program and it takes you 30 hours at, say, $60/hour...charge $1800 for it. That way, when someone "steals" it, you can sue that single person and get your money back.
If an electrician spends 30 hours wiring a building at, say, $60/hour... he charges $1800 and then goes home. He doesn't get another nickle every time someone flicks a switch. What makes your 30 hours of work worth a potentially infinite amount of money, while his caps out at $1800?
Where the electrician differs from someone writing the program is that he's got a contract in place for $1800 bucks. He doesn't have to wire the building, and then hope someone shows up to pay him something.
But perhaps the software developer can learn from the electrician... raise the 1800$ first from future users (whether you find 1000 of them to pay $1.80... or 100 of them who want it badly enough to pay $18, then write and release the software, and then it doesn't matter how many copies get made.
And then offer to support the software, or build additional features for $. And live off that.
The point is that in a world where anyone and everyone can make copies for free, you can't have a business model where you charge for copies. Its not going to work. Your role in the new economy is producing the original... you have to figure out how to get paid enough for doing that to motivate you to do it.
How is it that someone has a laptop where important files aren't backed up...
People don't think about backups. I actually like Windows 7's backup nag... i think that's probably gotten more backups done than anything anyone else has done in the history of computers.
If you're just relying on a Firewall to block access to ports you shouldn't have open anyways, then yeah, you don't need the firewall: just close the ports. But in that scenario, it's really just a misapplication of an otherwise useful security device.
Not really. Redundancy and backup systems are an important part of security.
. I'm sure Apple can do the same with OSX, but I'm unsure about the whole patent issue when it comes to Linux.
Can, but probably won't. Firefox reproduces core functionality already provided by Safari. ;)
That said, its unclear to me why a 3rd party couldn't do it, they wouldn't need an h264 patent license to connect firefox to the h264 codec already licensed and present on the computer would they?
As for linux, same thing... if one has an h264 codec, then the plug in should be doable. I don't offhand know much about the availability of h264 on linux... i use linux... but primarily for servers... usually headless or virtualized... so h264 support hasn't come up much. :)
Mod parent up.
Actually I am for Heathcare Reform and against Obama's proposal. The best option wasn't presented.
The only issue i have with your post is that. I agree the best option wasn't presented. I'd rather see them make an improvement, rather than do nothing at all because its not perfect.
We got the best option they could pass, and I think its an improvement. If you are against every proposal that isn't the best proposal, then you will never be for anything that might actually pass.
Pay Cash.
And the people who don't have enough cash?
(i.e. less than $20,000).
MOST people don't have that much cash. And VERY FEW could afford two hits like that in succession. What do people do when they CAN'T pay?
Supplement that with: Catastrophic insurance.
Mandatory catastrophic insurance? Or is this optional? If its mandatory, how does it differ from Obamacare exactly? If its optional... what happens to people without it?
When you develop a serious illness like cancer that exceeds some minimum (say $50,000) then the company will cover your bills and "save" you from being bankrupted.
What company? Not everyone is employed.
As for poor people, I'd simply use Welfare to pay their bills. Or some other safety net. We don't need to Force everyone into a government-run program.
Welfare can't pay those bills, unless welfare gets an increased budget. Do you favor a tax increase to cover government funded health care for those who cannot afford it?
Just the bottom ~5% that are too poor to help themselves. A net. The rest of us would not need the net, so we would receive no government assistance
Depending on the illness, the bottom 80% may be too poor to help themselves, especially if they selected an inadequate insurance premium. What happens if they aren't covered / properly covered? Do we bankrupt them, put them welfare, and then pay it out of the government welfare program you propose?
Freedom of Choice is preferable to being treated like a child too dumb to make his/her own decisions.
One can't simply decide to have enough money to afford adequate insurance. One can't decide the insurance company will cover you while you are unemployed. One can't decide to be eligible for affordable coverage if the insurance company deems you a high risk. And many people do have pre-existing conditions - they don't need and can't get "insurance" they ALREADY are sick. They need healthcare, and they can't decide how much it will cost them.
I had a mommy & daddy...
How nice for you. Many people didn't. Many people had really irresponsible parents that made really bad decisions. Is that their fault?
So FREEDOM is the better option PLUS the government-safety net I outlined above (welfare, medicare, food stamps, and so on) to help the bottom 5%.
a) So any one with a pre-existing condition has the freedom to go bankrupt and live on welfare?
b) Anyone who has the freedom to make a good decision, but makes a bad one and has inadequate health insurance is free to go bankrupt and live on welfare.
c) Everyone above welfare but not wealthy is one medical incident away from being on welfare.
We can't evaluate the methodology because the methodology hasn't been published
That counts as evaluating it, and finding it missing. Big point against its credibility. :)
the tests compared bleeding edge releases of IE9 to an obsolete versions of Chrome
This much at least is factually incorrect. This study was done *in* September 2010. Chrome 6 was released September 2nd, 2010. Chrome 7 wasn't released until October 21st. What version do you think they should have used?
You appear to have fallen for Googles extremely rapid primary version number changes. Version 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and the preview of 9 have ALL been released in 2010.
The inherent conflict of interest taints the study to the point where it will never be possible clear it of enough doubt to make the data useful.
But in nearly any situation the parties interested in paying for studies have an interest. In the health sector at least there is enough public money floating around to fund some research... but in IT? Who is going to pay for the work?
All "independant" review sites host advertising from these companies, some of them are more blatantly biased than others but the 'taint' of the potential for a conflict of interest colors all of them. If you are going to demand there be no conflict of interest then you aren't going to get any studies at all.
I believe that most people who will be influenced by this kind of report are NOT in a position to methodically evaluate the test methodology.
Fair enough.
So when Microsoft (or McDonalds or the US Govt or Buy n Large) claim research that shows their product is superior to others, the reader gets one claim stuck in their head and it is repeated as fact*.
Fair enough. But the real problem here is twofold:
a) a news media happy to regurgitate press releases without doing any sort of journalistic investigation
b) a populace that largely lacks the ability or even desire to think critically -- as you mentioned
Of course if we fixed b) I think a) would largely take care of itself.
Microsoft citing a third party study is an appeal to an external authority. The claim is that Microsoft is trying to get their opinion on their own browser credibility by having it come from a mouthpiece that isn't first party.
That is why it raises a red flag. Credibility is questionable.
Its also possible that Microsoft commissioned a 3rd party because they actually wanted an independent study done, perhaps because they lacked the in house expertise or resources to do an internal one properly, perhaps because a internal one is even less credible than a funded 3rd party one.
We can and should be skeptical of Microsoft funded studies.
There is no analogous complaint to be made about Google, because they aren't trying to complain about the study by hiring an external firm to make the complaint.
Fair comment. However google's statements remain suspect because they also have a clear conflict of interest. It is in their interest to discredit the study, so their criticisms likewise raise the "red flag" of questionable credibility.
The study arguably has that particular problem because Microsoft paid for it...
But Microsoft paying for it isn't what invalidates the study. We can't stop our investigation at "Microsoft paid for it. Ergo its flawed." We have to actually find a flaw. After finding the flaw, you can arguably trace the flaw back to conflict of interest from funding, but a funding conflict of interest itself isn't enough to conclude there is a flaw.
While Wikileaks has been big news, there's nothing really new or innovative about it that hasn't been done before.
True of facebook too, or have we all forgotten myspace, friendster, linkedin, etc...
It just happened to be the recipient of the news scoop of the decade
To be fair, they've taken some heat over it. They could have just caved when the pressure mounted. A lot of their newsworthiness is a result of their tenacity to keep it up.
Bradley Manning
Perhaps, but right now, he's still just alleged person of the year.
They've been reduced to magical dust?
The magical attachment they had to gawker has been.
Just because Google's criticism of the study's claim isn't coming from a neutral third party doesn't mean Microsoft paying for a study that praises its own browser shouldn't set off all sorts of red flags concerning the validity of the study,
Who said it shouldn't set off red flags. It sets off a red flag, but it doesn't justify complete disregard of the study. Additionally Google's statements about the study should set off the VERY SAME red flags about googles statements.
especially when "[...]the list of actual URLs used for testing was not made available to the vendors or to the public, so there's no way to independently verify the results."
That's a red herring. It is a very good reason to significantly reduce the credibility of the study. However, it is completely unrelated to who paid for it, now isn't it?
I didn't dispute the conclusion regarding the quality of the study. I only disputed the quality of the argument leading to that conclusion.
"Microsoft paid for it. That's all I need to know." is a poor argument.
I can only be skeptical of the faceless Microsoft rep.
Agreed. Skepticism of every studies conclusion is healthy and necessary. However outright disregard for a study based on a single data point: "who paid for it" is not.
Yes necessarily. If they are recording your password in a way that can be retrieved as plain-text then the possibility exists for a massive breach that will leak all username/password pairs.
It may be well "secured", but the fact that it exists at all is a problem.
So the police tried to help them out. But the protestors simply didn't want to listen. It's like any other major city thoroughfare - if you want to march down, say, third avenue in New York or Broad Street in Philadelphia or Theobald's Road in the Bloomsbury section of London, it's disruptive and has to be properly planned out. Detours and road closures so you don't get carnage, for instance.
What you are describing is a "parade" not a "protest".
Its like how I've been protesting my strata's holiday decorations policy. They passed a bylaw saying that all outdoor holiday lights had to be a matching blue, with no blinking. Originally I was going to put up my red/white/green blinky strings as a protest, but my application to do so to the strata was declined, but I've been authorized by them to protest by putting the red/green/white blinkies in my windowless bathroom. What's more they are supposed to come down by the 15th of January, but I can leave them there until February.
You see, its not really a "protest" if there is no disruption. That's the entire point of a protest.
You want to see a protest? Piss off a 4 year old. They get it.
It reads aloud what is on the screen, such as the labels on the icons, and the user doubletaps anywhere on the screen to select one.
It sounded to me more like he double tapped on the screen where he wanted something read, suggesting that he could see well enough to know things were there.
He also specifically mentioned that he was able to use stock -CHARTS-; I admit I don't know a lot about voiceover, but it struck me that some level of vision would be necessary to process a stock chart.
The test, funded by Microsoft
That says it all.
And the response from google criticizing it was by someone right on google's payroll representing google's interests. I guess we can ignore their criticism then too?
Or perhaps we should let the work stand for itself, evaluate the methodology, strip away the marketing spin, and come away with some nugget of truth, regardless of who funded it. Of course that's "work".
I've heard they really love the iPhone. Here is an example article.
Reading that article tells me that the enthusiastic user isn't blind. He's legally blind.
One of the problems /. (and the world in general) has with blindness is that we forget that many (perhaps even most??) of the people categorized as blind can still see. They just see very poorly.
However, in terms of accessibility of devices, and things like internet access its a huge difference. We think of the blind and then try to imagine someone ourselves operating a touch screen with our eyes closed and no tactile feedback at all and naturally scoff at the absurdity of it.
But try squinting your eyes almost shut so you can still see the phone, but can't read anything on it. Your now "legally bind", but you can still make out the little blobs for the apps... you can pick them out easily by touch -- identifying them by position and colour. A bit of slick software to read out the text you that you can see is there but can't actually make out by double-tapping it... and voila... a very useful device.
I still don't see a relevant distinction for the purposes of providing healthcare.
Welfare of the states "themselves" is the welfare of its citizens in aggregate.
If Jim gets stick the state's welfare is not affected, but if the citizens of the state are systematically and collectively ill due to a plague the state's welfare can be reduced to a state of emergency. Somewhere between those extremes clearly the collective health and well being of the citizens is the well-being of the state.
If universal health care collectively improves citizens health, the drains from lost productivity to reduced emergency health care expenses leads to higher overall productivity and properity to the state.
You can't really argue that the population is somehow de-linked from the welfare of the state itself.
Picketing is non-violent, and non-disruptive.
Yes, it can be disruptive. People can still go in and out, but they have to walk past the picketers.
If you think I'm an asshole, you are within your rights to picket my house. You can stand outside, not on the property, with a sign and let people know, including people who come to visit.
Hmm... so how do i picket an online store. I can't let people know who come to visit because nobody physically shows up.
However, if you try to block me from entering my house, the police will come and remove you and charge you with a crime. You can't prevent me from going where I want.
If a LOT of people show up to picket you, you can still go in and out, but they are going to tie up street, and slow things down. Exactly like DDoS. DDoS doesn't stop the site from working, it just clogs things up getting in and out because of all the people around.
If a lot of people are picketing, and it clogs things up, that's disruptive... and entirely legal.
Not that I actually think DDoS is the equivalent to picketing. But it does bother me that picketing can be so neatly disabled by simply taking away all the public space. Freedom to assemble and protest doesn't have a lot of meaning if there isn't any public space.
Its already come up a few times that politcos have exploited this, by leasing their property, and then telling protestors they can't assemble because its private property not public property and "the landlord doesn't want them there". Its only a matter of time before we privatize roads and then ban marches as tresspassing on private property.
1) The power to tax is there to pay the government's bills and provide for the general welfare of the nation, not its citizens.
How does the general welfare of the nation not include its citizens? Take away the citizens and who exactly are you governing anyway? And who is doing this governing?
2) The OP specifically exempted taxes, which your clause covers
Yep, essentially congress can institute full on European style health care; but it can't mandate people buy into a private one.
Either we have a Constitution, and it applies, or it does not. Can you tell me, exactly where in the Constitution, Congress has the authority to require people to spend any money on anything, save for taxes?
Congress has the authority to collect taxes to provide for the general welfar of the united states. The power to tax for healthcare is a pretty reasonable interpretation of the first power outlined in the Powers of Congress.
But your right, that doesn't give them the power to make people buy private healthcare.
That's going to fall to the interstate commerce clause...
If you clamor about the Commerce Clause I'll scream that Health Insurance is NOT interstate commerce, it is specifically NOT interstate. I can't buy health insurance from Nevada.
Why not?
Follow the line of reasoning carefully.
Typically it goes something like this...
Fear that allowing residents to purchase health out-of-state health insurance would lead to a decline in the number of healthy people covered under in-state health insurance plans, and result in increasing premiums for those who remain.
Another concern was it would lead to far more insurance scams, as the state insurance regulators would have less control over what was being marketed to residents.
And from an administrative standpoint, they state insurance regulatory body would have increased paperwork and expenses, as they would have had to stay abreast of plan design and pricing in multiple states, rather than just the state plans they currently oversee.
Looks pretty clear to me that that the reason you have that limitation is a failure of the state to embrace interstate commerce. Congress is empowered to regulate interstate commerce, and this seems like an issue they actually should be getting involved with. Healthcare is clearly an interstate commerce issue. The fact that you can't buy insurance from Nevada proves it. States aren't really supposed to be enforcing restricted trade amongst themselves.
But that is besides the point, you want universally bad health care for everyone, so Constitution be damned.
Nobody wants universally bad health care, just as nobody wants a universally bad military.
They want a They want to fund a good military and a good health care program.
And the constitution actually clearly provides for that.
What we apparently can't have is mandated private health care for everyone.
So to provide universal healthcare constitutionally they have to add in the public option, raise taxes to pay for it, and then people can of course purchase private insurance where ever they like if they prefer. Hmmm... that sounds familiar, exactly what the democrats asked for.
It was only the compromises that were made that removed the public option that resulted in the unconstitutional thing we have now.