RTFA - you're acting like the sky has already fallen.
1) It's not a mandate, it's language that could in theory be used to allow ISPs to filter content. It does not say they have to. In fact, once the final regulations get released it would still have to be litigated, which could result in all of this being moot depending on court decisions. And no amount of litigation is going to construe a small loophole as a mandate.
2) It's a draft, get over it. There's bad shit in drafts all the time. Call your congressman and tell them to sign an angry letter to the FCC calling for the language to be changed. This is a common practice on Capitol Hill that actually works a large amount of the time.
3) It's not legislation, it's the FCC detailing what they think they can do within their current jurisdiction and mandates. Call your congressman and tell them to sign onto legislation that changes the FCC's jurisdiction and mandates. In fact, the language in Representative Markey's current bill still says that any "reasonable network management" has to utilize the "least restrictive, least discriminatory, and least constricting of consumer choice" solution available.
Please do some reading before you go nuts, Chicken Little.
it's generally very costly for them to send people around checking out all of the different options for all of the different hospitals to determine what they'll pay for what.
That's why there's email. It's not difficult for a hospital to send a list of numbers that they would bill an insurance company for. If the price is unacceptable and the doctors at that hospital are in high demand then they can actually send someone out to negotiate a better rate.
And if they're actually competing for customers, then they have a counter-incentive to keep the patient happy, which means ever-increasing costs.
This might make sense if insurance companies were the ones actually treating patients, because it would mean that keeping the patient happy would be providing good treatment. However, keeping the patient 'happy' from the perspective of the insurance company simply means paying up when billed. Insurers competing for customers means paying for more procedures and doing so with a lower premium, which means an incentive to keep the cost of each procedure down.
When patients routinely ask the doctor "Okay, what will that cost?", then we'll start to see some significant downward pressure that begins to at least contain the growth of health care spending, and perhaps even starts to reduce costs.
This makes absolutely no sense. People with insurance, high deductible or not, generally do not question the costs of remaining in good health. They sign consent forms for procedures and deal with the bills after the fact. This is why bankruptcy rates from health care bills are so high. The people who do not seek treatment based on costs are almost exclusively the uninsured. If the internal link to your argument is seriously that patient will start haggling with the people responsible for keeping them alive, you might want to rethink your position.
Its pretty reasonable, lets say you have a ROM site that has every NES game on it, that there is over 600 games.
This is a good point.
So then you just have to wonder how slimy the lawyers are and whether or not they want to drown these people in paper. I suppose we could fit 600 games on a few pages, but why bother when we have document templates and laser printers:)
1.427 notices per second assuming they work constantly...
Course they probably don't work weekends or holidays: more like 2.075 notices per second with taking time off. Oh... wait! They only work 9 to 5, right? Assume an hour for lunch... that takes it to 7.143 notices per second!
I don't really know how long an individual notice is in words, or how many are sent through email. We can probably assume that for any given delivery it gets printed out at least once... so that makes about 5400 trees worth of copy paper.
Once again, assuming it only takes one page, and assuming they are using a relatively efficient printer... this works out to what? $1,800,000 worth of ink just to print all this out once?
I guess it really didn't say 45 million notices, just infringements. So I guess I'm also assuming from all this that one infringement = one notice. I'm sure that I'm also being conservative that one notice also only takes one page.
Then why don't we just cover the tops of houses and other buildings? I'm not sure how much total area the nation's roofs are in comparison to roadways, but roofs definitely have the benefit of not normally being driven on.
As others have pointed out, Japan didn't offer "surrender". They were offering what was effectively nothing more than a cease-fire.
This is a really bad argument based around semantics. If you actually look at the history of war, an unconditional surrender is not only rare, it is practically unheard of. "Unconditional Surrender" was Ulysses S. Grant's nickname during the Civil War, and even the majority of surrenders to his forces were conditional, often allowing opposing officers to even keep their sidearms. Yes, they were the enemy, and he let them keep their guns. The Japanese condition was to keep their monarch, and it was dismissed out of hand. Then when they finally did agree to the Potsdam declaration, they were told they could keep their monarch. Under your interpretation, we currently have nothing more than a cease-fire with Japan, as their eventual surrendered came under the same conditions that they initially offered.
Roosevelt wasn't willing to accept anything less than unconditional surrender, because it would have inevitably been re-interpreted into something less than the original agreement.
You're kidding, right? We had the waters outside their ports mined, their air force was grounded and outnumbered, they didn't even have enough gas to get their boats out of harbor into the mined ocean and your argument is that Roosevelt was afraid of being boondoggled by Japanese bureaucrats?
I'm going to post my hopefully catch-all response to this general thread right here, mostly because I found the immediate above response to be the most intelligently written (even if I still disagree with it).
Most of the whining about my statement has been for a citation. I find this rather hilarious, as the first person who responded to my post gave a citation that supported my point: that there had been earlier offers of peace from japan that were rejected by Roosevelt. Either way, the source I take my information from was the largely undisputed article printed shortly after Japan's surrender, authored by Walter Trohan. For those who do not have access to Proquest, The Journal of Historical Review gives a pretty good analysis of the article and also reprints the text at the bottom of the page. From the Journal Article:
Trohan's article revealed that two days prior to Rooseveltâ(TM)s departure for Yalta, the president received a crucial, forty page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from highly placed Jap officials offering surrender terms which were virtually identical to the ones eventually dictated by the Allies to the Japanese in August.
Yes, there were 5 offers of peace relayed to the allies long before the atom bombs were dropped. The three I refer to in my original post were the three that had been relayed directly to US forces, the other two were relayed via the British.
Why is it that everyone focuses on the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, completely ignoring the months of fire raids that preceeded
I do not discount the magnitude of these bombings, but a quick search of Wikipedia does reveal that these missions began after the three offers of peace I am discussing. The terms which the allied forces made Japan agree to in the end (which only asked to keep their monarch in place) were identical to the ones given before these bombings. This means that the bombings were entirely unnecessary.
Furthermore, after having been burned to a crisp, they still wouldn't grant an unconditional surrender.
True, they did not agree to an unconditional surrender, but since Roosevelt dismissed the offer out of hand, it is also true that there was no effort truly made to find out if they would accept unconditional surrender. However, since the eventual surrender still allowed Japan the one condition they asked for, I find your point is rather moot.
Though, the bombings did have one effect. They made Japan desperate enough to make similar offers to Russia. From the end of the Trohan article:
Just before the Japanese surrender the Russian foreign commissar disclosed that the Japs had made peace overtures through Moscow asking that the Soviets mediate the war. These overtures were made in the middle of June through the Russian foreign office and also through a personal letter from Hirohito to Stalin Both overtures were reported to the United States and Britain.
The analysis about bombers and civilian war is mostly correct. Additionally, I never really disagreed that eliminating the enemy's ability to wage war was effective, I only note that the extent to which it was taken in the Pacific Theater was completely unnecessary.
You're also wrong about why we never had future attacks from Japan. They'd have done it if they could... we just w
Did you notice that was the last time that Japan attacked anyone?
This reminds me of the episode of the Simpsons where Springfield enacted the "Bear Patrol" to protect the town. Correlation != Causation
Peace is the result of completely removing your enemy's capacity or desire to wage war.
The atomic bomb did not remove Japan's desire to wage war, three offers of surrender previous to the bomb would indicate that their desire was basically gone already.
The atom bomb did not prevent future attacks from Japan, economic interdependence and teaching their manufacturers to make cars did.
Can we require businesses that patent the ideas to have real, actual products to retain the patent?
Well, since one of the things the complainant has to prove in the ITC is that they have a domestic industry practicing the asserted claims, yes, we can.
Patent trolling companies cover this by purchasing common stock in a company that practices whatever idea they are suing over. Stock represents equity which represents ownership of said 'domestic industry'. It's messy, but it works.
As far as I knew, Jimmy Carter signed the Department of Education Organization Act
He did, and prior to 1980 the Department of Health and Human Services was known as the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. All the Department of Education Organization Act did was create a new cabinet-level office and transfer existing personnel and existing functions into that office from about 5-6 other federal agencies that all had separate education programs. There was an independent Department of Education in 1867 as well that later got consolidated into the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The shuffling around of people never did actually change what those people did.
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
Interstate and foreign commercial enterprise is very literally what the internet is now meant to achieve. These days, people purchase so many products and conduct so many transactions across state lines through the web that any specific area without the infrastructure to get broadband access becomes handicapped, as they are without the ability to effectively move their services online.
I will admit this is not a perfect fit in a grammatical sense, BUT the internet did not exist when the constitution was written, so a certain evolution of the statement's meaning is to be expected.
You're looking at it backwards. There's nothing that says the Federal government cannot require me to fill out my income tax forms whilst a butt plug adorned with tassels is firmly seated in my arse either.
Actually, you are quite missing my point, which is to state that none of these actions that are being conducted are meddlesome. All federal funds can be refused by a state, and any state could refuse to submit their data to the department of education.
The constitution limits the power of the federal government to impose its will. However, all the department of education offers is a service which states do not have to utilize.
In summary: If you have a problem with the federal government's influence on your curriculum. Lobby your state legislature to stop accepting the handout.
Do some research, the Department of Education has no mandates which are unconstitutional. I cannot speak to any specific policy which they may or may not have tried to enact, but the vast majority of their work is entirely legitimate federal territory.
The Dept. of Education: 1) Distributes federal aid funds and monitors their usage. This is how the federal government also influences curriculum. Certain things have to be taught in order to get federal money. There is nothing that says the federal government cannot make funding state issues conditional. 2) They collect data and conduct research on the status of the school system. Nothing says the federal government cannot review the national performance of the country's schools. 3) They serve as a national focal point for education. While people will of course look to their own state and local governments to tell them how their child's education is conducted, the department of education can definitely bring people's attention to inconsistencies among the states. 4) They do what they can to prohibit discrimination and ensure equal access to education. 14th Amendment says the federal government HAS to do this much.
None of this is especially meddlesome, it does not infringe upon your extremely obsolete notion of state autonomy.
To answer a few of your questions.
1) The new windows infrastructure will at the very least be used for communication across the ship, and it could likely start being used to automate many basic ship functions.
2) This saved money because it downsizes the necessary crew needed to effectively run the ship (and their new hardware is probably more reliable than whatever systems were being used, meaning fewer maintenance costs).
3) It is highly doubtful that they would wire launch function into a windows network, or ANY network for that matter... They've seen Battlestar Galactica too.
And just to spoil everyone's jokes about nuking china: Windows will not be able to suddenly grow arms and legs, walk over to the warhead, open a panel, flip several switches, and enter a 4-8 digit numerical code. If the new workstations could launch anything, it would just launch unarmed duds.
Slashdot Mirror
RTFA - you're acting like the sky has already fallen.
1) It's not a mandate, it's language that could in theory be used to allow ISPs to filter content. It does not say they have to. In fact, once the final regulations get released it would still have to be litigated, which could result in all of this being moot depending on court decisions. And no amount of litigation is going to construe a small loophole as a mandate.
2) It's a draft, get over it. There's bad shit in drafts all the time. Call your congressman and tell them to sign an angry letter to the FCC calling for the language to be changed. This is a common practice on Capitol Hill that actually works a large amount of the time.
3) It's not legislation, it's the FCC detailing what they think they can do within their current jurisdiction and mandates. Call your congressman and tell them to sign onto legislation that changes the FCC's jurisdiction and mandates. In fact, the language in Representative Markey's current bill still says that any "reasonable network management" has to utilize the "least restrictive, least discriminatory, and least constricting of consumer choice" solution available.
Please do some reading before you go nuts, Chicken Little.
it's generally very costly for them to send people around checking out all of the different options for all of the different hospitals to determine what they'll pay for what.
That's why there's email. It's not difficult for a hospital to send a list of numbers that they would bill an insurance company for. If the price is unacceptable and the doctors at that hospital are in high demand then they can actually send someone out to negotiate a better rate.
And if they're actually competing for customers, then they have a counter-incentive to keep the patient happy, which means ever-increasing costs.
This might make sense if insurance companies were the ones actually treating patients, because it would mean that keeping the patient happy would be providing good treatment. However, keeping the patient 'happy' from the perspective of the insurance company simply means paying up when billed. Insurers competing for customers means paying for more procedures and doing so with a lower premium, which means an incentive to keep the cost of each procedure down.
When patients routinely ask the doctor "Okay, what will that cost?", then we'll start to see some significant downward pressure that begins to at least contain the growth of health care spending, and perhaps even starts to reduce costs.
This makes absolutely no sense. People with insurance, high deductible or not, generally do not question the costs of remaining in good health. They sign consent forms for procedures and deal with the bills after the fact. This is why bankruptcy rates from health care bills are so high. The people who do not seek treatment based on costs are almost exclusively the uninsured. If the internal link to your argument is seriously that patient will start haggling with the people responsible for keeping them alive, you might want to rethink your position.
Its pretty reasonable, lets say you have a ROM site that has every NES game on it, that there is over 600 games.
This is a good point. :)
So then you just have to wonder how slimy the lawyers are and whether or not they want to drown these people in paper. I suppose we could fit 600 games on a few pages, but why bother when we have document templates and laser printers
1.427 notices per second assuming they work constantly...
Course they probably don't work weekends or holidays: more like 2.075 notices per second with taking time off. Oh... wait! They only work 9 to 5, right? Assume an hour for lunch... that takes it to 7.143 notices per second!
I don't really know how long an individual notice is in words, or how many are sent through email. We can probably assume that for any given delivery it gets printed out at least once... so that makes about 5400 trees worth of copy paper.
Once again, assuming it only takes one page, and assuming they are using a relatively efficient printer... this works out to what? $1,800,000 worth of ink just to print all this out once?
I guess it really didn't say 45 million notices, just infringements. So I guess I'm also assuming from all this that one infringement = one notice. I'm sure that I'm also being conservative that one notice also only takes one page.
So, how will you ever hook up a computer to your brain?
I thought the keyboard already solved this problem... It's not quite direct but it seems to work.
Then why don't we just cover the tops of houses and other buildings? I'm not sure how much total area the nation's roofs are in comparison to roadways, but roofs definitely have the benefit of not normally being driven on.
As others have pointed out, Japan didn't offer "surrender". They were offering what was effectively nothing more than a cease-fire.
This is a really bad argument based around semantics. If you actually look at the history of war, an unconditional surrender is not only rare, it is practically unheard of. "Unconditional Surrender" was Ulysses S. Grant's nickname during the Civil War, and even the majority of surrenders to his forces were conditional, often allowing opposing officers to even keep their sidearms. Yes, they were the enemy, and he let them keep their guns. The Japanese condition was to keep their monarch, and it was dismissed out of hand. Then when they finally did agree to the Potsdam declaration, they were told they could keep their monarch. Under your interpretation, we currently have nothing more than a cease-fire with Japan, as their eventual surrendered came under the same conditions that they initially offered.
Roosevelt wasn't willing to accept anything less than unconditional surrender, because it would have inevitably been re-interpreted into something less than the original agreement.
You're kidding, right? We had the waters outside their ports mined, their air force was grounded and outnumbered, they didn't even have enough gas to get their boats out of harbor into the mined ocean and your argument is that Roosevelt was afraid of being boondoggled by Japanese bureaucrats?
WE DON"T OWE ANYONE A DAMNED THING!
US Gross External Debt
We owe plenty.
Had to do it :)
Most of the whining about my statement has been for a citation. I find this rather hilarious, as the first person who responded to my post gave a citation that supported my point: that there had been earlier offers of peace from japan that were rejected by Roosevelt. Either way, the source I take my information from was the largely undisputed article printed shortly after Japan's surrender, authored by Walter Trohan. For those who do not have access to Proquest, The Journal of Historical Review gives a pretty good analysis of the article and also reprints the text at the bottom of the page.
From the Journal Article:
Trohan's article revealed that two days prior to Rooseveltâ(TM)s departure for Yalta, the president received a crucial, forty page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from highly placed Jap officials offering surrender terms which were virtually identical to the ones eventually dictated by the Allies to the Japanese in August.
Yes, there were 5 offers of peace relayed to the allies long before the atom bombs were dropped. The three I refer to in my original post were the three that had been relayed directly to US forces, the other two were relayed via the British.
Why is it that everyone focuses on the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, completely ignoring the months of fire raids that preceeded
I do not discount the magnitude of these bombings, but a quick search of Wikipedia does reveal that these missions began after the three offers of peace I am discussing. The terms which the allied forces made Japan agree to in the end (which only asked to keep their monarch in place) were identical to the ones given before these bombings. This means that the bombings were entirely unnecessary.
Furthermore, after having been burned to a crisp, they still wouldn't grant an unconditional surrender.
True, they did not agree to an unconditional surrender, but since Roosevelt dismissed the offer out of hand, it is also true that there was no effort truly made to find out if they would accept unconditional surrender. However, since the eventual surrender still allowed Japan the one condition they asked for, I find your point is rather moot.
Though, the bombings did have one effect. They made Japan desperate enough to make similar offers to Russia.
From the end of the Trohan article:
Just before the Japanese surrender the Russian foreign commissar disclosed that the Japs had made peace overtures through Moscow asking that the Soviets mediate the war. These overtures were made in the middle of June through the Russian foreign office and also through a personal letter from Hirohito to Stalin Both overtures were reported to the United States and Britain.
The analysis about bombers and civilian war is mostly correct. Additionally, I never really disagreed that eliminating the enemy's ability to wage war was effective, I only note that the extent to which it was taken in the Pacific Theater was completely unnecessary.
You're also wrong about why we never had future attacks from Japan. They'd have done it if they could ... we just w
Did you notice that was the last time that Japan attacked anyone?
This reminds me of the episode of the Simpsons where Springfield enacted the "Bear Patrol" to protect the town. Correlation != Causation
Peace is the result of completely removing your enemy's capacity or desire to wage war.
The atomic bomb did not remove Japan's desire to wage war, three offers of surrender previous to the bomb would indicate that their desire was basically gone already.
The atom bomb did not prevent future attacks from Japan, economic interdependence and teaching their manufacturers to make cars did.
Well, since one of the things the complainant has to prove in the ITC is that they have a domestic industry practicing the asserted claims, yes, we can.
Patent trolling companies cover this by purchasing common stock in a company that practices whatever idea they are suing over. Stock represents equity which represents ownership of said 'domestic industry'. It's messy, but it works.
As far as I knew, Jimmy Carter signed the Department of Education Organization Act
He did, and prior to 1980 the Department of Health and Human Services was known as the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. All the Department of Education Organization Act did was create a new cabinet-level office and transfer existing personnel and existing functions into that office from about 5-6 other federal agencies that all had separate education programs. There was an independent Department of Education in 1867 as well that later got consolidated into the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The shuffling around of people never did actually change what those people did.
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
Interstate and foreign commercial enterprise is very literally what the internet is now meant to achieve. These days, people purchase so many products and conduct so many transactions across state lines through the web that any specific area without the infrastructure to get broadband access becomes handicapped, as they are without the ability to effectively move their services online. I will admit this is not a perfect fit in a grammatical sense, BUT the internet did not exist when the constitution was written, so a certain evolution of the statement's meaning is to be expected.
You're looking at it backwards. There's nothing that says the Federal government cannot require me to fill out my income tax forms whilst a butt plug adorned with tassels is firmly seated in my arse either.
Actually, you are quite missing my point, which is to state that none of these actions that are being conducted are meddlesome. All federal funds can be refused by a state, and any state could refuse to submit their data to the department of education.
The constitution limits the power of the federal government to impose its will. However, all the department of education offers is a service which states do not have to utilize.
In summary: If you have a problem with the federal government's influence on your curriculum. Lobby your state legislature to stop accepting the handout.
This SCIgen system quite resembles how many undergrads I have seen write papers for many of their classes, not just computer science.
Do some research, the Department of Education has no mandates which are unconstitutional. I cannot speak to any specific policy which they may or may not have tried to enact, but the vast majority of their work is entirely legitimate federal territory.
The Dept. of Education:
1) Distributes federal aid funds and monitors their usage. This is how the federal government also influences curriculum. Certain things have to be taught in order to get federal money. There is nothing that says the federal government cannot make funding state issues conditional.
2) They collect data and conduct research on the status of the school system. Nothing says the federal government cannot review the national performance of the country's schools.
3) They serve as a national focal point for education. While people will of course look to their own state and local governments to tell them how their child's education is conducted, the department of education can definitely bring people's attention to inconsistencies among the states.
4) They do what they can to prohibit discrimination and ensure equal access to education. 14th Amendment says the federal government HAS to do this much.
None of this is especially meddlesome, it does not infringe upon your extremely obsolete notion of state autonomy.
Rodney McKay is in dating with the doctor of Atlantis, Jennifer Come on geek, keep up with the episodes!
The actress playing Jennifer is probably burned permanently into his mind because of Firefly, where her character was named Kaylee.
To answer a few of your questions. 1) The new windows infrastructure will at the very least be used for communication across the ship, and it could likely start being used to automate many basic ship functions. 2) This saved money because it downsizes the necessary crew needed to effectively run the ship (and their new hardware is probably more reliable than whatever systems were being used, meaning fewer maintenance costs). 3) It is highly doubtful that they would wire launch function into a windows network, or ANY network for that matter... They've seen Battlestar Galactica too. And just to spoil everyone's jokes about nuking china: Windows will not be able to suddenly grow arms and legs, walk over to the warhead, open a panel, flip several switches, and enter a 4-8 digit numerical code. If the new workstations could launch anything, it would just launch unarmed duds.