Hasn't microsoft missed a patch tuesday in the past, causing a researcher to reveal a zero day because of a time limit policy on withholding the vulnerability from the public? I agree the timing is suspicious, but it may be that FireEye said "We're revealing it on 9/12/2017, so you better not miss patch tuesday, but if you do release then everything will be okay." I'm just pointing that out as a possibility; we may never know what is said behind the scenes.
When the Trump administration was fighting lawsuits regarding the "ban on Muslims", the Trump administration argued that they should be granted tons and tons of power on issues surrounding immigration. Because the Trump administration wanted to do it.
This is false. The law is already on the books, and has been for decades. 8 U.S. Code section 1182 (f). It reads:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
While this was regarding the DAPA, not DACA, the issues are very similar, and yes, Obama did usurp the power of congress by declaring that the INS can declare anyone in the United States to be here legally and grant them a work permit.
Article 1 section 1 was violated. Law must first be enacted by the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, not the executive branch. Good job, you just failed middle school civics.
Washington charges a gasoline tax to pay for its roads, and property taxes to pay for schools. We can see through your tax deceptions: no tax is ever enough. Paraphrasing from Margaret Thatcher, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money". You think you're clever and have found a solution by taxing from an ever-widening tax base (kind of like how a pyramid scheme works!). If the local taxpayers are insufficient to pay for your big government boondoggle, then you'll attempt to tax people nationwide. But leftists get mad when business flees the state, and paying customers are prioritized over the interests of government. This is the power of tax competition.
It seems to me that even if you introduce a VAT tax, that the government can't resist other forms of taxation as well. A VAT tax just becomes a second tax, and the complaints continue. I would personally like to see a switch to a consumption-based VAT tax if all other forms of taxation could be eliminated, however, the that sort of thing probably will never happen.
It makes sense if you believe the trust the FBI and a Ukrainian who hates Russia over the credibility of Wikileaks. I, of course, don't. But between a desperate FBI, and a malware writer possibly looking to make a quick buck, they're a good match for one-another.
Leftism is the idea that government can be used to solve practically any problem. Are there people who are hungry and can't get food? Create a government food stamp program. Are there people who can't afford housing? Create a government Housing and Urban Development department to build a government housing project. The list goes on and on, from electricity, phones, communications, medical care, schools, jobs, transportation, and almost anything else of which you can think. Most always, Leftism does not involve any free market solution. Instead, the preferred method is to tax those who are working, and then redistribute it to Leftists' constituents, thus weakening any opposition to the left, and creating a voting base dependent on politicians for.... everything!
Neither Sweden, nor Germany became prosperous prior to instituting a Leftist agenda. As a reminder, East Germany collapsed, while capitalist West Germany was the prosperous nation.
Almost all Leftists are Klepotocrats. Very few have ideas other than "tax and spend". Of the few which are not, most of them focus instead on regulation because they realize that they have reached the upper limits of taxation without collapsing their economies. However, at its core is still the idea of a government solution, for which high taxes are a prerequisite.
There's a constant movement of money, often measured as the Velocity of Money. Someone produces a good or service by working at a business. Then they get paid at the end of the week. That money then gets used by the worker to buy the things he needs. So another business now has his money and used it to pay its workers. Some of that money is distributed to the owners. Ect, ect.
The question is: does the money accumulate somewhere? This question is important because if the money is being accumulated somewhere in the economy, it could come at the expense of another part of the economy. Right now, yes, money and wealth is being rapidly accumulated by the financial sector of the United States, at the expense of the standard of living of middle-class workers that make up the front line of the goods-producing sector of the economy.
You are an elitist who wants cheap foreign labor in order to benefit your own standard of living at the expense of existing American workers. It's true that labor costs will rise, and there would be a re-balancing of prices. Many people find it likely that an increase in the price of labor, if left to the free market, will result in the financial sector being valued downwards, on the historical basis that this was the way it worked for a long time prior to the emergence of a dominant financial sector in the country. Workers are entitled to SOME bargaining power through supply and demand. And those workers are beginning to get really annoyed by open-boarders elitists such as yourself who are attempting to screw over their standard of living by introducing a near infinite supply of virtual slave labor.
>>What you're talking about is nothing new. We have always been a country of immigrants. Always. And it's always been our greatest strength. If you think this basic American principle is now outdated for some reason, I wonder which other basic American principles you believe have sell-by dates.
Integration is the strength. Non-integrating cultures are a weakness. Remember that whole "melting pot" thing that you were supposed to learn? It appears that you forgot. There was no sell-by date; it has always been the case for immigration that immigrants become more like Americans. If it wasn't, then noone would have wanted to move to America, and they everyone would have been better off before moving to America.
The modern United States military is no longer based around conscription. Instead, its fighting effectiveness is dependent upon having a highly-motivated and highly-trained fighting force. This morale and motivation declines when sexuality is introduced into the military. You can stop pretending that any future wars in which the United States participates will suddenly switch back to conscription due to some kind of magical greater effectiveness. Conscripts used for human-wave attack tactics were ineffective against the destructiveness of industrial nation weapons as of 50 years ago; their effects against modern weapons have only diminished to the point of near uselessness.
There are relatively few police officers per person. Off-the-cuff searches indicate only 15 to 20 officers per 10,000 people. Some large cities employ more, in the 20 to 40 range, but keep in mind this number therefore needs to provide coverage 24/7, including holidays. That's 10 police officers per 8 hour shift, even in large cities, assuming that they work 356 days a year with no days off. Basically, they can't cover enough area with the available manpower, even if you narrow it down.
It sounds to me like Auto Pilot is a misleading name for marketing purposes. People assume that Autopilot means that you can take your hands off the steering wheel, or take your eyes off the road, and go do something else. I say we need to prevent companies from calling it Autopilot, and just call it something like "Hold The Lane" or "Drive Straight". The sales guys might object, but too bad; Autopilot has not yet been invented.
I agree that the war on drugs is a total waste of time, money, effort, and humanity. You're absolutely right that the drug offender part of the prison system is worthless. I'm only considering my alternative cost for violent crooks.
It certainly seems trivial to defeat to people such as you and me. But based on her profile, it seems to me that she was likely a linguist, doing translation work from Farsi into English (I could be wrong about her job, but that's my best guess). She might not have been technical at all, the way Snowden is. In all likelihood, she probably didn't even know about the watermarks, let alone considered how to defeat them.
Weekly radio address? Welcome back to the 1930s! You liberals are just jealous that Trump isn't playing by your game. That's your idea of fairness: Trump should only be able to respond to 6 day old news, on Sunday morning, to only those who happen to be awake and still own a radio. Instead, Trump is blowing your crony corporate media filter out of the water and communicating immediately with modern technology. You and Nancy Pelosi can keep your fuddy-duddy radio address.
You can't force someone to learn at school and act correctly. Also, we may be getting our money's worth for the violent offenders. I realize that some people don't like the cost of housing prisoners, but what is the alternative cost? If released, how likely is a homicide convict likely to repeat? How much would you be willing to pay to prevent a loved-one from being added to the victim list? $80k seems like a small price to pay if it would prevent another murder.
Throughout the history of civilization, mankind has almost always lived under a ruler. A monarch, a dictator, a despot, a military general; it doesn't matter the title of the ruler, it was all the same: the average person has no say in how the national shall operate, and the nation shall operate for the benefit of its rulers only, not those being ruled. Freedom and democracy were very rare occurrences. But America was different. Ordinary people got to vote, and the nation was operated in a fashion such that advancement of the rich and powerful did not come at the expense of the ordinary citizens. AMERICA BECAME THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE OF HUMAN HISTORY. Maximum freedom was achieved. Maximum prosperity was achieved. America because so successful that large segments of the population across the world (even today) are willing to leave their family and friends in their home country to get to the United States, while others considered overthrowing their monarchs and dictators to become like the United States.
So that's what American Exceptionalism means. It means that we have a winning formula, and not just an approximation that partly delivers for some people for part of the time. We know how to get the most freedom, and the most prosperity, for the most people, all at the same time. And it comes from a system of moral beliefs, not in a technocrat, not in a central planning committee, not in a bureaucratic union, not in a central bank. As long as Americans know and believe the principles upon which the nation was founded, we will continue to be that exception to human history where everyone wants to be like us.
While I disagree with your solution, I do like that you identify the core problem with the universal basic income. If you give money away, then people will spend it on ipads. Actually, they will probably spend it on things that I consider wasteful, such as gambling, alcohol, or drugs. Spending your own money on those things is fine, but we know that when people make bad decisions and run out of their free money allocation, and are now homeless, starving, and without medical care that they will come begging for another handout. We're not cruel and heartless, so we'll startup another food stamp system, free housing project, and medicade program. It is for this reason that you are right to realize that a UBI program will fail, and that something else is needed.
Want to do business in north america? Your company in these sectors will have to offer at cost prices for the basic amount for individuals. It won't take money from you. Your profit is on non essential items, premium items. People who choose to purchase beyond their basic allotted amounts.
While economists seldom agree on anything, the vast majority of economists conclude that price controls do not work. And make no mistake, you are advocating for price controls. Right now, Venezuela is trying your exact program, whereby bakeries must supply at-cost staple food items, and can only make a profit from premium items. The result is that there is starvation in the country, currency hyperinflation, and a black market.
Companies will go "Fuck you I'll go elsewhere since I won't make as much and you'll have no food etc!"
Go ahead, the more companies that leave, the more business for the ones that stay, so they'll still be quite profitable.
As seen in Venezuela, socialism is always successful at first. It may take several years. It may take a decade, or perhaps more. But this WILL happen. When you take away profits, business will do less of that activity. It cannot be solved by price controls, or by nationalizing a business or industry. Eventually enough companies will leave such that there are severe price distortions, which leads to disasterous consequences.
Have you been reading Slashdot? Every week there's a story about Uber. We know their work environment is over-competitive and toxic.
Yet the customers seem to love it a lot better than the regular taxi service. It turns out that the corporate culture 1000 miles away doesn't affect the guy getting better service at a lower price. If you have a problem with the corporate culture, then fine, go to their corporate headquarters and complain. But don't interfere with the customer getting the product that they want.
Yes. The Austin law was stupid and anti-competitive. But they have a right to be stupid, and if the citizens of Austin don't like it they can vote the incumbents out. If we give up local control just because a particular law is stupid, then we also give up local control on every other issue.
The Texas legislature should keep out of local affairs, just as the Feds should keep out of state affairs.
No, the state decides what sort of local control to give. The constitution spells out state rights, but state laws and constitutions do not necessarily grant cities the right to decide on all issues, such as mass transit or the internet.
States can let city control on issues such as policing, garbage collection, property zoning, and a whole bunch of other things. But the state doesn't need to give up all control, and when cities become bureaucratic nightmares for all of its other citizens, then the state is well within its rights to take that control away from the cities. You don't have a right to be stupid and interfere with the rights of all of the other citizens in the state, if the state says so.
Slashdot Mirror
Hasn't microsoft missed a patch tuesday in the past, causing a researcher to reveal a zero day because of a time limit policy on withholding the vulnerability from the public? I agree the timing is suspicious, but it may be that FireEye said "We're revealing it on 9/12/2017, so you better not miss patch tuesday, but if you do release then everything will be okay." I'm just pointing that out as a possibility; we may never know what is said behind the scenes.
When the Trump administration was fighting lawsuits regarding the "ban on Muslims", the Trump administration argued that they should be granted tons and tons of power on issues surrounding immigration. Because the Trump administration wanted to do it.
This is false. The law is already on the books, and has been for decades. 8 U.S. Code section 1182 (f). It reads:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
While this was regarding the DAPA, not DACA, the issues are very similar, and yes, Obama did usurp the power of congress by declaring that the INS can declare anyone in the United States to be here legally and grant them a work permit.
https://www.theatlantic.com/po...
Obama did far more than just not enforce a law with this program.
Article 1 section 1 was violated. Law must first be enacted by the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, not the executive branch. Good job, you just failed middle school civics.
Washington charges a gasoline tax to pay for its roads, and property taxes to pay for schools. We can see through your tax deceptions: no tax is ever enough. Paraphrasing from Margaret Thatcher, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money". You think you're clever and have found a solution by taxing from an ever-widening tax base (kind of like how a pyramid scheme works!). If the local taxpayers are insufficient to pay for your big government boondoggle, then you'll attempt to tax people nationwide. But leftists get mad when business flees the state, and paying customers are prioritized over the interests of government. This is the power of tax competition.
I thought most of Europe was operating from a VAT tax, and yet several EU countries are complaining that several tech companies are avoiding taxes?
Examples:
https://9to5mac.com/2017/07/04...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
It seems to me that even if you introduce a VAT tax, that the government can't resist other forms of taxation as well. A VAT tax just becomes a second tax, and the complaints continue. I would personally like to see a switch to a consumption-based VAT tax if all other forms of taxation could be eliminated, however, the that sort of thing probably will never happen.
It makes sense if you believe the trust the FBI and a Ukrainian who hates Russia over the credibility of Wikileaks. I, of course, don't. But between a desperate FBI, and a malware writer possibly looking to make a quick buck, they're a good match for one-another.
Leftism is the idea that government can be used to solve practically any problem. Are there people who are hungry and can't get food? Create a government food stamp program. Are there people who can't afford housing? Create a government Housing and Urban Development department to build a government housing project. The list goes on and on, from electricity, phones, communications, medical care, schools, jobs, transportation, and almost anything else of which you can think. Most always, Leftism does not involve any free market solution. Instead, the preferred method is to tax those who are working, and then redistribute it to Leftists' constituents, thus weakening any opposition to the left, and creating a voting base dependent on politicians for.... everything!
Neither Sweden, nor Germany became prosperous prior to instituting a Leftist agenda. As a reminder, East Germany collapsed, while capitalist West Germany was the prosperous nation.
Almost all Leftists are Klepotocrats. Very few have ideas other than "tax and spend". Of the few which are not, most of them focus instead on regulation because they realize that they have reached the upper limits of taxation without collapsing their economies. However, at its core is still the idea of a government solution, for which high taxes are a prerequisite.
There's a constant movement of money, often measured as the Velocity of Money. Someone produces a good or service by working at a business. Then they get paid at the end of the week. That money then gets used by the worker to buy the things he needs. So another business now has his money and used it to pay its workers. Some of that money is distributed to the owners. Ect, ect.
The question is: does the money accumulate somewhere? This question is important because if the money is being accumulated somewhere in the economy, it could come at the expense of another part of the economy. Right now, yes, money and wealth is being rapidly accumulated by the financial sector of the United States, at the expense of the standard of living of middle-class workers that make up the front line of the goods-producing sector of the economy.
You are an elitist who wants cheap foreign labor in order to benefit your own standard of living at the expense of existing American workers. It's true that labor costs will rise, and there would be a re-balancing of prices. Many people find it likely that an increase in the price of labor, if left to the free market, will result in the financial sector being valued downwards, on the historical basis that this was the way it worked for a long time prior to the emergence of a dominant financial sector in the country. Workers are entitled to SOME bargaining power through supply and demand. And those workers are beginning to get really annoyed by open-boarders elitists such as yourself who are attempting to screw over their standard of living by introducing a near infinite supply of virtual slave labor.
>>What you're talking about is nothing new. We have always been a country of immigrants. Always. And it's always been our greatest strength. If you think this basic American principle is now outdated for some reason, I wonder which other basic American principles you believe have sell-by dates.
Integration is the strength. Non-integrating cultures are a weakness. Remember that whole "melting pot" thing that you were supposed to learn? It appears that you forgot. There was no sell-by date; it has always been the case for immigration that immigrants become more like Americans. If it wasn't, then noone would have wanted to move to America, and they everyone would have been better off before moving to America.
...says the person who declares themself judge, jury, and executioner.
The modern United States military is no longer based around conscription. Instead, its fighting effectiveness is dependent upon having a highly-motivated and highly-trained fighting force. This morale and motivation declines when sexuality is introduced into the military. You can stop pretending that any future wars in which the United States participates will suddenly switch back to conscription due to some kind of magical greater effectiveness. Conscripts used for human-wave attack tactics were ineffective against the destructiveness of industrial nation weapons as of 50 years ago; their effects against modern weapons have only diminished to the point of near uselessness.
There are relatively few police officers per person. Off-the-cuff searches indicate only 15 to 20 officers per 10,000 people. Some large cities employ more, in the 20 to 40 range, but keep in mind this number therefore needs to provide coverage 24/7, including holidays. That's 10 police officers per 8 hour shift, even in large cities, assuming that they work 356 days a year with no days off. Basically, they can't cover enough area with the available manpower, even if you narrow it down.
It sounds to me like Auto Pilot is a misleading name for marketing purposes. People assume that Autopilot means that you can take your hands off the steering wheel, or take your eyes off the road, and go do something else. I say we need to prevent companies from calling it Autopilot, and just call it something like "Hold The Lane" or "Drive Straight". The sales guys might object, but too bad; Autopilot has not yet been invented.
She should have just openly taken a copy of the document, posted it to her private server, and demanded the Hillary treatment!
I agree that the war on drugs is a total waste of time, money, effort, and humanity. You're absolutely right that the drug offender part of the prison system is worthless. I'm only considering my alternative cost for violent crooks.
Nothing, the President of the United States has the authority to declassify anything at any time.
It certainly seems trivial to defeat to people such as you and me. But based on her profile, it seems to me that she was likely a linguist, doing translation work from Farsi into English (I could be wrong about her job, but that's my best guess). She might not have been technical at all, the way Snowden is. In all likelihood, she probably didn't even know about the watermarks, let alone considered how to defeat them.
Weekly radio address? Welcome back to the 1930s! You liberals are just jealous that Trump isn't playing by your game. That's your idea of fairness: Trump should only be able to respond to 6 day old news, on Sunday morning, to only those who happen to be awake and still own a radio. Instead, Trump is blowing your crony corporate media filter out of the water and communicating immediately with modern technology. You and Nancy Pelosi can keep your fuddy-duddy radio address.
You can't force someone to learn at school and act correctly. Also, we may be getting our money's worth for the violent offenders. I realize that some people don't like the cost of housing prisoners, but what is the alternative cost? If released, how likely is a homicide convict likely to repeat? How much would you be willing to pay to prevent a loved-one from being added to the victim list? $80k seems like a small price to pay if it would prevent another murder.
Throughout the history of civilization, mankind has almost always lived under a ruler. A monarch, a dictator, a despot, a military general; it doesn't matter the title of the ruler, it was all the same: the average person has no say in how the national shall operate, and the nation shall operate for the benefit of its rulers only, not those being ruled. Freedom and democracy were very rare occurrences. But America was different. Ordinary people got to vote, and the nation was operated in a fashion such that advancement of the rich and powerful did not come at the expense of the ordinary citizens. AMERICA BECAME THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE OF HUMAN HISTORY. Maximum freedom was achieved. Maximum prosperity was achieved. America because so successful that large segments of the population across the world (even today) are willing to leave their family and friends in their home country to get to the United States, while others considered overthrowing their monarchs and dictators to become like the United States.
So that's what American Exceptionalism means. It means that we have a winning formula, and not just an approximation that partly delivers for some people for part of the time. We know how to get the most freedom, and the most prosperity, for the most people, all at the same time. And it comes from a system of moral beliefs, not in a technocrat, not in a central planning committee, not in a bureaucratic union, not in a central bank. As long as Americans know and believe the principles upon which the nation was founded, we will continue to be that exception to human history where everyone wants to be like us.
Want to do business in north america? Your company in these sectors will have to offer at cost prices for the basic amount for individuals. It won't take money from you. Your profit is on non essential items, premium items. People who choose to purchase beyond their basic allotted amounts.
While economists seldom agree on anything, the vast majority of economists conclude that price controls do not work. And make no mistake, you are advocating for price controls. Right now, Venezuela is trying your exact program, whereby bakeries must supply at-cost staple food items, and can only make a profit from premium items. The result is that there is starvation in the country, currency hyperinflation, and a black market.
Companies will go "Fuck you I'll go elsewhere since I won't make as much and you'll have no food etc!" Go ahead, the more companies that leave, the more business for the ones that stay, so they'll still be quite profitable.
As seen in Venezuela, socialism is always successful at first. It may take several years. It may take a decade, or perhaps more. But this WILL happen. When you take away profits, business will do less of that activity. It cannot be solved by price controls, or by nationalizing a business or industry. Eventually enough companies will leave such that there are severe price distortions, which leads to disasterous consequences.
Houston's regulations are neither "small government" nor the proper venue by which one should attempt to regulate internet companies.
Have you been reading Slashdot? Every week there's a story about Uber. We know their work environment is over-competitive and toxic.
Yet the customers seem to love it a lot better than the regular taxi service. It turns out that the corporate culture 1000 miles away doesn't affect the guy getting better service at a lower price. If you have a problem with the corporate culture, then fine, go to their corporate headquarters and complain. But don't interfere with the customer getting the product that they want.
Yes. The Austin law was stupid and anti-competitive. But they have a right to be stupid, and if the citizens of Austin don't like it they can vote the incumbents out. If we give up local control just because a particular law is stupid, then we also give up local control on every other issue.
The Texas legislature should keep out of local affairs, just as the Feds should keep out of state affairs.
No, the state decides what sort of local control to give. The constitution spells out state rights, but state laws and constitutions do not necessarily grant cities the right to decide on all issues, such as mass transit or the internet.
States can let city control on issues such as policing, garbage collection, property zoning, and a whole bunch of other things. But the state doesn't need to give up all control, and when cities become bureaucratic nightmares for all of its other citizens, then the state is well within its rights to take that control away from the cities. You don't have a right to be stupid and interfere with the rights of all of the other citizens in the state, if the state says so.