Isn't Lott the guy who was so dishonest that he created a female sock puppet named "Mary Rosh" to defend his work and call Lott "the best professor I ever had"?
Why are you asking me?
And what does it have to do with government-supplied statistics?
We don't know if Congress can authorize such an activity.
I think you and GP are basically saying the same thing there: the court did not rule on the Constitutionality. It did not have to.
I look at it this way an activity isn't constitutional or unconstitutional, its legal or illegal; a law, order, process, or procedure could be unconstitutional
An activity can very definitely be unconstitutional. For example: if you're arrested and not read your rights before questioning, your Constitutional rights have been violated. It's not a procedure or policy to do so, nevertheless the officers involved engaged in an unconstitutional act.
The whole thing is silly because it's re-directing the focus to a tiny subset of some archaic historical communication system (phone call metadata).
What's silly about it? Much of the law is all about precedent. In this case, precedent says phone calls (and their metadata) are private, barring a judicial warrant. That's not silly at all... it's quite reasonable.
It's like saying that they shouldn't get to make maps of smoke signal fire pit locations.
It would only be like saying that if the smoke signals were invisible to everybody but the parties at either end plus the "smoke signal carrier", and the smoke signal conversations were therefore intended to be private.
This is all just to distract people from their bulk collection of internet communications; and giving politicians an opportunity to say "see, I'm tough on privacy" without actually accomplishing anything significant.
I disagree, since it's all part of the same conversation.
Trek is Space Opera. You won't find SciFi there.
Space Opera is a form of Science Fiction. Therefore, even if you were correct that it is Space Opera, it is still Sci-Fi.
I heard where pharmacies are sharing prescription data with each other and with doctors to stop people from going from doctor to doctor to get more meds. More prescriptions than any one doctor would let one patient have. It might be required by law in my state.
We have a state pharmacy database which does that. However, the data is not supposed to be commercially available, AND it most definitely is not supposed to be hooked up to any kind of Federal system.
How long will it be before all our medical histories become public knowledge?
Well, I think there are two important things to note here: first, IANAL but sharing this data between pharmacies without any patient input would appear to be a blatant violation of HIPAA regulations. Second, my state's prescription database is very definitely NOT supposed to be connected to any Federal database. That would be a violation of State law.
I can attest that it is not thermal. It works in a vacuum. It works in a Faraday cage and it works when you reverse the device (the thrust reverses).
from what i recall , it does not defy the laws of physics , it uses a traveling em wave to crate "grip" to the static universal em background field , this method provides thrust from input power by creating a traveling wave that is out of phase to the external one causing motion , like swimming through the background field using the background field to displace it like a phase drive motor , just that its too easy to miss in the maths
The problem is that theoretically, there is no "background field" to "grip". You appear to be proposing a "universal aether" or maybe "phlogiston". Those aren't exactly groundbreaking ideas.
According to theory the quantum vacuum has virtual particles in it, but that doesn't make it a "fabric" to grip or push against.
I am interested to see what kind of thrust they DO claim to have gotten this time. And I am also curious why they chose to use a lower-power source, rather than trying to replicate the original experiments.
Also remember that the context here was that I pointed out why the people Jane's disagreeing with might claim to have studied something for years, even though their absurd conclusions might suggest otherwise to students of the Constitution like Jane Q. Public.
I doubt the average reasonable person would, on reading the original comment this is about, conclude that it referred to "other people".
And make no mistake, this bill is written by corporate lobbyists, which to me is enough to disqualify it entirely.
I've read the bill, and it looks completely reasonable to me. I don't much care who wrote it; I only care about what's in it.
(Certainly who wrote it might cause enough alarm to justify actually reading it, but it isn't excuse to damn it without reading it.)
Remember, an earlier draft of this bill forbade government agencies from using scientific "models".
No, it didn't. It merely required whatever models are used to be made public.
Do you believe the EPA should not be able to restrict the high-pressure injection of toxic chemicals into the aquifer because the information isn't "public"?
We agree on many things, but this isn't one of them.
The EPA clearly (at least at present) has jurisdiction over polluted groundwater. That's the kind of thing it was created for.
Industry is not "allowed" to pollute groundwater just because its use of the pollutant is a "trade secret". That's not how it works. This is about the basis of regulations. If the public and "reasonably reproducible" science says (thin air example) isofurans above 20ppb are harmful to health, they can be regulated.
That means they could not be released into groundwater, "trade secret" or not. (Not that I am any fan of EPA... I have had far too much experience with it to think it is our friend.)
Look, I'm a big fan of Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning too, but when you have corporations with vested interests in keeping information away from the public, forcing the government to only be able to act on information that's public will only let them run further amok.
That's really not how it is written. I suggest you read the actual bill.
One good reason why computers can do more work than people is that they never have to stop and answer the phone.
