Disability Fraud is a different thing. Root cause and all. That should be addressed BAU, regularly.
This feels awful,;like these former students are getting away with something. But the truth is, they are incapable of paying off their loans, and to pretend otherwise is to just wait until they die, and then saddle their heirs or such with the bill. Which isn't much of a solution. Unless you really, really want to collect from anyone, by any means. We've outlawed many of the most grievous debt collection methods elsewhere, so why not let the gummint go ahead and use those, right?
One of the complaints is that Hillary saw and disseminated information via her private server that she should have known, upon inspection, was or should have been classified. Her only defenses in these instances are ignorance, that is she was not trained or informed, or incompetence, that she failed to recognize the nature of the information.
Either defense seems, to me, to jeopardize her assertion that she is competent or qualified to act in our interests as our President.
"There's plenty the Secretary of State can do to screw things up much worse than misfiling some documents"
Yes, but those things are often visible to all, and also actionable. Admittedly, mostly by dismissing the Secretary, but still, a private email server and circumventing classified information handling isn't 'misfiling'. It's intentional according to the publicized information I have read.
My work in the military was in a classified career field. Most of it was Confidential, with occasional Secret classifications, and more commonly (but not mostly) NOFORN.
Much of it was of value only for short periods of time. Some was actually information that could be found publicly, that by itself was not very dangerous, but when combined with other information also sometimes available publicly could be used against our nation with damaging effect.
Some was genuinely in the realm of industrial secrets, and would materially improve the abilities of our adversaries to defeat us in war, which is by itself a good reason to keep some things secret.
Others were more operational in nature, limited duration, and could be described as useful only for a moment. Higher classifications would not yield more protection or security.
To this day I am not yet free to discuss most of my work, though my knowledge is now 19 years out of date. Some of it is still important, and I'm not at liberty to choose what to talk about and what not to. I'm also not sure if I need to notify the government if I intend to travel to Russia or other countries labelled similarly as security risks. But I'm not planning to either.
Multiple levels of classification are just as critical as file permissions in operating systems. Some levels are just useful, others critical to security.
Thank you for your concern. I am, however, not in any danger of whatever you were trying to describe. Disingenuous sarcasm is mostly harmless in any case.
The root of the problem is pricing. Unlimited flat rate data plans permit maximum data use with predictable and acceptable cost to the user. The provider finds they either exceed expected costs or determine the market will bear higher prices/limited bandwidth, and we get either higher prices or throttling/caps.
Forcing providers to abandon caps/throttling leaves them only with pricing.
When providers determine that their customers are both end users and services (like Netflix or Yahoo!) then they may exert the same pressure on both...
Either failure of the market, where the government breaks it beyond repair, or failure of the market, where the players abandon the market and move to profitable business models.
Trying to make pricing fair fails so long as there is no genuine competition. Whether this requires multiple providers or not is interesting, as there are in fact multiple providers for most of the U.S. - fixed v mobile services to start, with mobile having several that probably now function as an oligarchy, and fixed having probably two at most, with the problems of geographical coverage making that an oligarchy in practice.
Google is trying to upset that, though I cannot yet figure out why. Municipalities continue to abet the incumbent abuses by preventing them from entering markets where the incumbents can get protection.
And going to government at any level for service would probably (from experience) result in below average service, poor customer service, increasing prices, and a genuine risk of introducing regulations worse than what we have now. Has no one considered whether a municipal Internet provider could be forced to filter objectionable content? Some would be pretty obvious, but some not so much. Porn in Utah? Gun blogs in Malibu?
A free Internet is a real challenge - the world actually may prefer liberty, but very few governments do. Ours even, founded on liberty, is being twisted and subverted in favor of oppression. Freedom is not free. It must be defended. Constantly.
"it is obvious that arms are meant to be regulated and dispersed through trained militias"
It's not obvious to me, but then I construe the Amendment differently than you, focusing on "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" as the enabling and purposeful statement. Militia may be a reason, but I believe the Amendment relies on the people keeping Arms to form a militia if needed, not the need for a militia justifying the people keeping Arms. Though that also seems to me to ensure the people have the right to keep Arms in order to form a militia, which then assures us of the right to own guns. Which is still reasonably subject to certain limitations, as for instance felons, those known to pose a realistic and significant threat to one or more others, and unstable persons may not be qualified for service in a militia, and so might be limited in their right to own guns.
Otherwise, we could consider each of us a militia of one, and stop this nonsense. Our Declaration of Independence describes and recognizes a fundamental right to life, and so should logically also recognize a right to self-defense. Since this is the basis of many challenges to gun control laws, those laws ruling that citizens be denied guns might be construed as contrary to the founding principles and intents of our nation. Not as clear as a Constitutional abridgment, but an interesting an powerful point.
Not likely to win in court, I know. But that doesn't make it wrong.
Wow. You still read that sh*t? I'm almost as white cracker* conservative homophobe** as it gets, but even I don't go back to those sites a second time. That'a messed up.
* pay close attention, SJWs, this is either self-deprecating humor or or outright sarcasm, whichever you prefer.
** After 19 years of suffering, I've been in remission for about 40 years. There was a brief period of indeterminate healing I went through. Thank the U.S. Air Force for healing me of racism and homophobia, in that order.
Has the Obama administration in any way reduced prosecution for drug trafficking or possession? He issues Executive Orders to refuse to enforce immigration laws, yet leaves federal drug enforcement intact.
BTW, my employer used to delay some transactions at their prerogative to benefit their customers, specifically to offer them a more favorable exchange rate on foreign currency exchanges. We do that less now, as many customers prefer consistency and prompt settlement to favorable exchange rates. Greater utility to speed than cost in their cases. But if we introduced random timing, I suspect we would get complaints.
I understand arbitrage. It is invariably based on unequal knowledge, which seems unfair, and is, but such an argument could be made about many markets and transactions. But 'economic rent' implies a coercive element. So is an infinite delay in payment (as in never paying) acceptable? Or, more likely, do you argue that delaying the transaction offers some way to mitigate the inequality?
Well, be specific. Libertarianspeak is harder to spot than sarcasm.
And even 'economic rent' is either paid or not. If it's OK to delay payment for some contrived reason, just as the price is assumed to be contrived, then we are perhaps arguing over the time? Is 'never' an acceptable time?
Slashdot Mirror
Disability Fraud is a different thing. Root cause and all. That should be addressed BAU, regularly.
This feels awful, ;like these former students are getting away with something. But the truth is, they are incapable of paying off their loans, and to pretend otherwise is to just wait until they die, and then saddle their heirs or such with the bill. Which isn't much of a solution. Unless you really, really want to collect from anyone, by any means. We've outlawed many of the most grievous debt collection methods elsewhere, so why not let the gummint go ahead and use those, right?
I don't see the downside to this.
Most instructive, however, is that Scooter was jailed for perjury.
Hillary could, from the information I've read in the media, be charged with perjury also.
One of the complaints is that Hillary saw and disseminated information via her private server that she should have known, upon inspection, was or should have been classified. Her only defenses in these instances are ignorance, that is she was not trained or informed, or incompetence, that she failed to recognize the nature of the information.
Either defense seems, to me, to jeopardize her assertion that she is competent or qualified to act in our interests as our President.
And NOFORN, used not just for intelligence-related information, but for specific programs or systems, such as naval nuclear propulsion.
"There's plenty the Secretary of State can do to screw things up much worse than misfiling some documents"
Yes, but those things are often visible to all, and also actionable. Admittedly, mostly by dismissing the Secretary, but still, a private email server and circumventing classified information handling isn't 'misfiling'. It's intentional according to the publicized information I have read.
My work in the military was in a classified career field. Most of it was Confidential, with occasional Secret classifications, and more commonly (but not mostly) NOFORN.
Much of it was of value only for short periods of time. Some was actually information that could be found publicly, that by itself was not very dangerous, but when combined with other information also sometimes available publicly could be used against our nation with damaging effect.
Some was genuinely in the realm of industrial secrets, and would materially improve the abilities of our adversaries to defeat us in war, which is by itself a good reason to keep some things secret.
Others were more operational in nature, limited duration, and could be described as useful only for a moment. Higher classifications would not yield more protection or security.
To this day I am not yet free to discuss most of my work, though my knowledge is now 19 years out of date. Some of it is still important, and I'm not at liberty to choose what to talk about and what not to. I'm also not sure if I need to notify the government if I intend to travel to Russia or other countries labelled similarly as security risks. But I'm not planning to either.
Multiple levels of classification are just as critical as file permissions in operating systems. Some levels are just useful, others critical to security.
Only +3? this should be +6.
Several legal principles predate our Constitution, not limited to regal powers and the concept of literal ownership of people.
Which of these should we also tolerate?
I've had HTC phones for >10 years; G1, Sensation 4G, M7, M8. I see nothing fascinating about the M10.
Much more interesting to try a Nexus, and I may even buy a Nexus 5 just to try it out. Craigslist is full of them, and cheap.
The M10 is evolutionary, but I need recommendations on superthin covers/cases to protect the edges. My M8 looks and feels terrible. I drop it. Sue me.
So long as HTC loves aluminum casings, wireless charging is not going to be available on those phones.
Design choices. HTC should be making some.
Thank you for your concern. I am, however, not in any danger of whatever you were trying to describe. Disingenuous sarcasm is mostly harmless in any case.
The root of the problem is pricing. Unlimited flat rate data plans permit maximum data use with predictable and acceptable cost to the user. The provider finds they either exceed expected costs or determine the market will bear higher prices /limited bandwidth, and we get either higher prices or throttling /caps.
Forcing providers to abandon caps /throttling leaves them only with pricing.
When providers determine that their customers are both end users and services (like Netflix or Yahoo!) then they may exert the same pressure on both...
And it's your contention that Obama either instituted this policy or expanded it?
Either failure of the market, where the government breaks it beyond repair, or failure of the market, where the players abandon the market and move to profitable business models.
Trying to make pricing fair fails so long as there is no genuine competition. Whether this requires multiple providers or not is interesting, as there are in fact multiple providers for most of the U.S. - fixed v mobile services to start, with mobile having several that probably now function as an oligarchy, and fixed having probably two at most, with the problems of geographical coverage making that an oligarchy in practice.
Google is trying to upset that, though I cannot yet figure out why. Municipalities continue to abet the incumbent abuses by preventing them from entering markets where the incumbents can get protection.
And going to government at any level for service would probably (from experience) result in below average service, poor customer service, increasing prices, and a genuine risk of introducing regulations worse than what we have now. Has no one considered whether a municipal Internet provider could be forced to filter objectionable content? Some would be pretty obvious, but some not so much. Porn in Utah? Gun blogs in Malibu?
A free Internet is a real challenge - the world actually may prefer liberty, but very few governments do. Ours even, founded on liberty, is being twisted and subverted in favor of oppression. Freedom is not free. It must be defended. Constantly.
But in what way is he lax on drug law enforcement.?
HST should be delayed on human - scale time, minutes.
"it is obvious that arms are meant to be regulated and dispersed through trained militias"
It's not obvious to me, but then I construe the Amendment differently than you, focusing on "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" as the enabling and purposeful statement. Militia may be a reason, but I believe the Amendment relies on the people keeping Arms to form a militia if needed, not the need for a militia justifying the people keeping Arms. Though that also seems to me to ensure the people have the right to keep Arms in order to form a militia, which then assures us of the right to own guns. Which is still reasonably subject to certain limitations, as for instance felons, those known to pose a realistic and significant threat to one or more others, and unstable persons may not be qualified for service in a militia, and so might be limited in their right to own guns.
Otherwise, we could consider each of us a militia of one, and stop this nonsense. Our Declaration of Independence describes and recognizes a fundamental right to life, and so should logically also recognize a right to self-defense. Since this is the basis of many challenges to gun control laws, those laws ruling that citizens be denied guns might be construed as contrary to the founding principles and intents of our nation. Not as clear as a Constitutional abridgment, but an interesting an powerful point.
Not likely to win in court, I know. But that doesn't make it wrong.
Wow. You still read that sh*t? I'm almost as white cracker* conservative homophobe** as it gets, but even I don't go back to those sites a second time. That'a messed up.
* pay close attention, SJWs, this is either self-deprecating humor or or outright sarcasm, whichever you prefer.
** After 19 years of suffering, I've been in remission for about 40 years. There was a brief period of indeterminate healing I went through. Thank the U.S. Air Force for healing me of racism and homophobia, in that order.
A big gun is not such a good idea if you've got small hands...
Has the Obama administration in any way reduced prosecution for drug trafficking or possession? He issues Executive Orders to refuse to enforce immigration laws, yet leaves federal drug enforcement intact.
Is he somehow kowtowing to conservative policies?
The fix to this may be to stop paying attention to ACs. After all, they are cowards.
Save for those who moderate and then post anonymously. They are cheats. You can figure out why that was frowned upon, and why it's impossible to stop.
BTW, my employer used to delay some transactions at their prerogative to benefit their customers, specifically to offer them a more favorable exchange rate on foreign currency exchanges. We do that less now, as many customers prefer consistency and prompt settlement to favorable exchange rates. Greater utility to speed than cost in their cases. But if we introduced random timing, I suspect we would get complaints.
Don't be nice.
I understand arbitrage. It is invariably based on unequal knowledge, which seems unfair, and is, but such an argument could be made about many markets and transactions. But 'economic rent' implies a coercive element. So is an infinite delay in payment (as in never paying) acceptable? Or, more likely, do you argue that delaying the transaction offers some way to mitigate the inequality?
I assumed that since none of what was lost was yours, your opinion didn't matter. And mine was is your opinion...
Pleeze, correct me. You're good at that.
Well, be specific. Libertarianspeak is harder to spot than sarcasm.
And even 'economic rent' is either paid or not. If it's OK to delay payment for some contrived reason, just as the price is assumed to be contrived, then we are perhaps arguing over the time? Is 'never' an acceptable time?
Contrived.