They don't need to establish what the causation is, only that there is a reliable correlation. With a reliable correlation, they can predict more accurately who will get in an accident, and that's all that matters.
One potential issue is that the correlation may be masking or duplicating some other correlation. It's like saying that racial minorities are more likely to be criminals, but the actual correlation is with living in poor, urban areas.
If a politician changes the way they vote on certain matters so that you no longer agree with their positions, then you can and should vote for somebody else in the next election. That's the way representative government works.
Note that I'm assuming that you mean changes over time based on changes in public opinion. A politician who makes statements during a campaign and immediately goes against those statements when they're elected is a different issue.
I'm not familiar with the New York government (This is the state rather than the city, right?), and perhaps it should be an action by the state legislature.
You think the legislature should be involved in every detail of contract negotiations between the state and private companies? If that were the case, the legislature wouldn't have time to discuss and pass actual laws that need to be handled. Granted, in some cases that would be a good thing, but overall I think it would be better for the legislature to spend time on laws instead of details of execution of the laws.
His stances on various issues have routinely "evolved" as the political winds have shifted during his career... absolutely no moral compass or POV on anything that has not been vetted by pollsters
A lot of people complain about politicians like this. Since the US is theoretically a democracy, though, isn't it a positive trait for a politician to follow the will of their constituency? Don't we want politicians that pay more attention to the voters than to the donors?
AT&T wants a certain amount of legislation codified so it can appease the people that are pro-net neutrality. Then it can find ways to get around the law.
Find? AT&T will write the loopholes themselves. No finding will be necessary.
I have no idea if it's true or false. All I know is that claiming something is the EXTREME in HISTORY without mentioning the fact that the time scale of that history only covers 158 of the past 4.5 billion years is pure click-bait sensationalism.
It's not science. At all. Not even close.
We also don't have measurements of gravity or the position of the moon from 1 billion years ago. Does that mean orbital mechanics isn't science?
With a password manager they only need to get past one password to know everything. Not just what all your passwords are, but all the websites you have passwords for.
But they would also need access to the password store file, which should only be on your computer. The main advantage of a password manager is that you can have different, complex passwords for each site, so that if one of those sites has a data breach (which you'd be assuming is more likely than having your personal computer compromised), the attackers don't get your password to a bunch of other sites.
Yes, it is a science. It makes predictions, then we see if those predictions were accurate.
Or does it only work when looking backwards?
Well, that's the part where we see if the predictions were accurate. So yes, sort of?
Prediction of climate is as much science as orbital mechanics predicting where the moon will be.
Right. Orbital mechanics was accepted when the observations ended up matching the predictions.
Sometimes you can't just wait. When the measurement can only be taken after catastrophic change has happened? What then?
Hopefully we decided to play the odds and prepare for the outcome that was 98% likely.
Remember, science doesn't prove anything. Proofs are for mathematicians. Climate Change is "less proven" than gravity because we've conducted thousands of controlled experiments confirming the details of gravity. We don't have a bunch of extra Earths lying around, so it's much more difficult to conduct controlled experiments that would confirm details and help improve the precision of the models and predictions.
Of course, you still have to be either a complete idiot or a selfish asshole to think that Climate Change is a hoax and bet your grandkid's existence on that 2% chance.
Cellular providers will sometimes throttle video, not to be jerks and violate net neutrality, but to save your data plan.
It's still a net neutrality violation thought. Or perhaps I should say it was.
That depends, do they throttle all video streaming, including any video service owned by AT&T? If so, then they aren't discriminating based on source/destination, and so it isn't a violation of the strictest definition of Net Neutrality.
"If you lower corporate taxes, companies will use that money to hire more people!"
Why? If hiring more people will increase revenue by more than the cost of those employees, then the company will hire more people. If revenue won't increase by more than the cost of the employees, then the company won't hire them. The only ways that lowering corporate taxes will change that is if it's payroll taxes that are being lowered or if the increase in revenue is questionable enough that the slightly higher profits from the lower tax rate makes the company more willing to take the risk. In either case, the difference is probably so small that it would have very little impact on employment rates compared to all of the other factors that contribute to the overall economy.
solution: set corporate tax to 0%. increase income tax on top bracket (who are the ones who own, and receive profit from the companies). This will shift the problem from corporate tax shelters being abused to personal tax shelters being abused.... but the difference is people can go to jail for breaking the law. Also, it will make America more attractive location for business.
I'm pretty left-of-center (actual, global center, not what most of America calls "center"), and I would fully support this idea. I would also add, though, getting rid of loopholes that allow executives to have $0 personal income (e.g. the company paying all of their personal expenses like food and travel).
Is this supposed to be an argument FOR partisan voting? If so, shall I start listing all of the nasty things the Democrats (DMCA, Copyright Extension, etc) have done and are planning to do?
How was the DMCA a partisan issue? If I remember correctly, it passed the Senate 99-0. I don't remember the votes for any of the copyright extensions, but I would be interested in seeing them if you would like to share them.
It's a correlation/causation thing. A majority of the time, people who are pushing "states' rights" are doing so because they don't want the federal government preventing them from discriminating against minorities. Historically, it's mostly been racial minorities, but homosexuals are common targets as well, and religious minorities get attacked once in a while too.
So no, "states' rights" isn't racist, but you do find them together a lot.
I am wondering - do the AG's have standing to file suit here?
Can a bunch of AGs just get together and appeal to a judge to get the government to do something?
To force the federal government to do something, not really. To prevent the federal government from doing something that harms their state (or more likely, the residents of their state), absolutely. The right to petition the government for redress is protected by the First Amendment, and these Attorneys General are exercising that right on behalf of the residents of their states.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't need to establish what the causation is, only that there is a reliable correlation. With a reliable correlation, they can predict more accurately who will get in an accident, and that's all that matters.
One potential issue is that the correlation may be masking or duplicating some other correlation. It's like saying that racial minorities are more likely to be criminals, but the actual correlation is with living in poor, urban areas.
Life insurance should work the same way. They should only charge more to people that die.
What, your life insurance application didn't have a checkbox for "Immortal"?
If a politician changes the way they vote on certain matters so that you no longer agree with their positions, then you can and should vote for somebody else in the next election. That's the way representative government works.
Note that I'm assuming that you mean changes over time based on changes in public opinion. A politician who makes statements during a campaign and immediately goes against those statements when they're elected is a different issue.
I'm not familiar with the New York government (This is the state rather than the city, right?), and perhaps it should be an action by the state legislature.
You think the legislature should be involved in every detail of contract negotiations between the state and private companies? If that were the case, the legislature wouldn't have time to discuss and pass actual laws that need to be handled. Granted, in some cases that would be a good thing, but overall I think it would be better for the legislature to spend time on laws instead of details of execution of the laws.
His stances on various issues have routinely "evolved" as the political winds have shifted during his career... absolutely no moral compass or POV on anything that has not been vetted by pollsters
A lot of people complain about politicians like this. Since the US is theoretically a democracy, though, isn't it a positive trait for a politician to follow the will of their constituency? Don't we want politicians that pay more attention to the voters than to the donors?
AT&T wants a certain amount of legislation codified so it can appease the people that are pro-net neutrality. Then it can find ways to get around the law.
Find? AT&T will write the loopholes themselves. No finding will be necessary.
The iPhone completely changed the game for smartphones. They made it actually useful.
What, exactly, in the first iPhone made it "actually useful"?
We didn't have quite the problem with youth we do today when we had a parent at home raising the kids, at least in the formative years.
I dunno about that. After all, we did end up getting you.
Do you think hundreds of millions of starving plebes will just roll over and die peacefully?
That's what the Killbots are for...
Even jackbooted thugs are losing their jobs to automation.
The phones alone weigh 52kg...
Well, it's good to see that Apple stopped prioritizing low weight quite so much.
If I understand correctly, you are allowed to use patented technology for your own purposes without a license.
You understand incorrectly. Infringement is by "whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells".
I have no idea if it's true or false. All I know is that claiming something is the EXTREME in HISTORY without mentioning the fact that the time scale of that history only covers 158 of the past 4.5 billion years is pure click-bait sensationalism.
It's not science. At all. Not even close.
We also don't have measurements of gravity or the position of the moon from 1 billion years ago. Does that mean orbital mechanics isn't science?
So: what do the senators get out of this ?
Some of them actually believe it. For others, they get the appearance of being "tough on terrorists", which helps them in the next election.
And don't forget that there is no way to transfer authentication credentials from one device to another (as I just found out).
Just enter the same seed and you'll get the same codes.
With a password manager they only need to get past one password to know everything. Not just what all your passwords are, but all the websites you have passwords for.
But they would also need access to the password store file, which should only be on your computer. The main advantage of a password manager is that you can have different, complex passwords for each site, so that if one of those sites has a data breach (which you'd be assuming is more likely than having your personal computer compromised), the attackers don't get your password to a bunch of other sites.
You thought wrong?
Is short-term weather forecast not a science?
Yes, it is a science. It makes predictions, then we see if those predictions were accurate.
Or does it only work when looking backwards?
Well, that's the part where we see if the predictions were accurate. So yes, sort of?
Prediction of climate is as much science as orbital mechanics predicting where the moon will be.
Right. Orbital mechanics was accepted when the observations ended up matching the predictions.
Sometimes you can't just wait. When the measurement can only be taken after catastrophic change has happened? What then?
Hopefully we decided to play the odds and prepare for the outcome that was 98% likely.
Remember, science doesn't prove anything. Proofs are for mathematicians. Climate Change is "less proven" than gravity because we've conducted thousands of controlled experiments confirming the details of gravity. We don't have a bunch of extra Earths lying around, so it's much more difficult to conduct controlled experiments that would confirm details and help improve the precision of the models and predictions.
Of course, you still have to be either a complete idiot or a selfish asshole to think that Climate Change is a hoax and bet your grandkid's existence on that 2% chance.
Is it really important for a potential murder victim whether the potential perpetrator is "naturally" or "culturally" violent?
No, but it may be important to a society that has a desire to reduce the murder rate.
Cellular providers will sometimes throttle video, not to be jerks and violate net neutrality, but to save your data plan.
It's still a net neutrality violation thought. Or perhaps I should say it was.
That depends, do they throttle all video streaming, including any video service owned by AT&T? If so, then they aren't discriminating based on source/destination, and so it isn't a violation of the strictest definition of Net Neutrality.
That's been my normal response, too.
"If you lower corporate taxes, companies will use that money to hire more people!"
Why? If hiring more people will increase revenue by more than the cost of those employees, then the company will hire more people. If revenue won't increase by more than the cost of the employees, then the company won't hire them. The only ways that lowering corporate taxes will change that is if it's payroll taxes that are being lowered or if the increase in revenue is questionable enough that the slightly higher profits from the lower tax rate makes the company more willing to take the risk. In either case, the difference is probably so small that it would have very little impact on employment rates compared to all of the other factors that contribute to the overall economy.
solution: set corporate tax to 0%. increase income tax on top bracket (who are the ones who own, and receive profit from the companies). This will shift the problem from corporate tax shelters being abused to personal tax shelters being abused.... but the difference is people can go to jail for breaking the law. Also, it will make America more attractive location for business.
I'm pretty left-of-center (actual, global center, not what most of America calls "center"), and I would fully support this idea. I would also add, though, getting rid of loopholes that allow executives to have $0 personal income (e.g. the company paying all of their personal expenses like food and travel).
Is this supposed to be an argument FOR partisan voting? If so, shall I start listing all of the nasty things the Democrats (DMCA, Copyright Extension, etc) have done and are planning to do?
How was the DMCA a partisan issue? If I remember correctly, it passed the Senate 99-0. I don't remember the votes for any of the copyright extensions, but I would be interested in seeing them if you would like to share them.
It's a correlation/causation thing. A majority of the time, people who are pushing "states' rights" are doing so because they don't want the federal government preventing them from discriminating against minorities. Historically, it's mostly been racial minorities, but homosexuals are common targets as well, and religious minorities get attacked once in a while too.
So no, "states' rights" isn't racist, but you do find them together a lot.
I am wondering - do the AG's have standing to file suit here?
Can a bunch of AGs just get together and appeal to a judge to get the government to do something?
To force the federal government to do something, not really. To prevent the federal government from doing something that harms their state (or more likely, the residents of their state), absolutely. The right to petition the government for redress is protected by the First Amendment, and these Attorneys General are exercising that right on behalf of the residents of their states.
The Courts do not set public policy nor do they create Legislation.
These AG's should know that. In fact, they do. But AG is a political position so this is nothing more than Grandstanding.
Perhaps you should try reading all the way to the end of the First Amendment?