Either way, the legislature, being comprised of representatives of the jurisdiction involved approved such an action. By extrapolation, that means that the entire jurisdiction approved and agreed to pay taxes to benefit others in the area.

That's how a republic works.

Which really means that the cost of the system doesn't double, but rather that $65/month of taxes are going to this project's costs, rather than building that new skate park, nature trail, or a new sign for city hall. Again, the represented constituents chose (likely indirectly) to spend their budget this way.

And I will happily pay my 30-cent share while those Massachusetts guys help cover the cost of my town's badly-needed $100M school renovation. You see, a long time ago, our two states (and several others) decided to unite to help each other improve their collective lives. Now referred to as the "United States", each member state's citizens pay some taxes into a pool to go toward projects throughout the entire aggregate society.

The total cost of the system will be less than it would be if the $90M only covered a single town. It's impossible to say what your non sequitur is trying to prove.

While I don't remotely agree with the NSA's bulk surveillance program, what you describe is called a "circuit split," and it happens all the time. In fact, it's one of the best indicators that the Supreme Court will take up a case.

Good.

Honestly, I'd rather see more stories edited to be less inflammatory. Most of the crap we get on here seems to be pushed to the extremes of "hate these guys" or "love those guys". It's nice to see some small attempt at real journalism, even if it is fueled by corporate politics. I'm hoping it will spread.

As was Lego Creator before that.

This is not Lego's first round in the "creative game" genre.

Right, and that's why I excuse my double standard.

Considering the poor quality of the submissions, and the flood of nearly-identical comments on other stories, I'm suspicious of the intent. It wouldn't be the first time Slashdot has been used to slander others, and the irony of having one Dice subsidiary embarrass another Dice subsidiary makes this a particularly appealing attack.

I saw several submissions, and frankly, not one of them was decent journalism. I voted them down.

Copying a juicy bit from the article and saying "Link to original source" is not a summary.

If I rearrange the letters in that first sentence, I can't make the latter one. I end up with an extra "eeefgghhlmtt", and still need "aiopsvwy".

Lying is evil too, right?

Awesome to meet somebody else in the space, it is a fun place to be in. I'm mostly a DevOps guy now (I know --- buzzwords blah blah), but if a tough support call comes in, typically I spend my time in the run-time analysis side explaining "why is this packet being dropped from this queue" or "why did our convergence algorithm pick this path". Say a big data center customer calls and says "such and such is getting dropped on the 40G QSFP links during congestion, please explain your bug". Then that turns into a large discussion about how to configure COS queues properly and some education about xyz configuration spaces with the various protocols, followed by an update to our documentation if it's sparse in that particular implementation scenario or a white paper specific to their topology and common traffic profiles (tier 1 ISPs usually).

I agree. After I first saw the movie, all I could focus on was the destination and not the journey. I obsessed with things like the Riemann Hypothesis and the Poincare Conjecture. After reading Perfect Rigor by Masha Gessen, a great book about how Gregory Perelman solved the Poincare Conjecture, it helped shape my perspective in life about what awards, honors, and all that junk really mean and how that stack up relative to the actual desire to do what one desires. Reading that Perelman wouldn't even answer the phone or accept the Fields medal from the committee was very inspiring and a lesson on humility and what it really means to be curious for the sake of curiosity rather than success or money.

I'm still a software engineer for a major Fortune 500 semiconductor company. I assist the network protocol teams with the mathematics behind various protocols and RFCs along the lines of things like WRED, TCP/IP, BGP, OSPF (think route convergence, etc). I saw the film about 8 years ago, and later on switched my major from physics to math and haven't looked backed since. Thanks for inquiring!

Historical inaccuracies aside, the movie A Beautiful Mind inspired me to pursue and receive my B.S. in Mathematics which resulted in a very lucrative and satisfactory career. My thanks go out to Dr. Nash and my condolences go out to his family.

Saying someone is not credible because they are part of an organization that is not credible is not ad hominem.

I'll point out that even reporting the money's use doesn't really mean anything. They just report that they entertained potential donors, and their big party is a perfectly cromulent expense. Of course, they have to show that the fundraising was somewhat successful, so they'll be sure to invite a few retired politicians who kept their own PACs and run their own parties. It's all a big cycle, where the money and champagne keep flowing.

The main difference between libertarians and liberals is in their preferred solutions.

Ultimately, the liberal philosophy is that society can and should take care of everyone. The libertarian philosophy is that everyone should only be required to take care of themselves. From an antagonist perspective, liberals have their heads in the clouds, and libertarians have never heard of the tragedy of the commons.

Both are able to see problems in the government programs that Sen. Paul spoke against. When it comes time for a solution, however, the libertarians would fight to abolish the programs entirely, reducing the size of government and ultimately the burden on citizens to support what little benefit the programs may bring. On the other hand, the liberals would usually rather fix the flawed programs, to preserve that benefit while removing the harmful details.

For completeness, we should discuss the conservative position as well: Government should only be involved when someone can't take care of themselves. If someone is able to manage their life without dealing with the government, then the government shouldn't interfere with that. The offending programs should be fixed so that their flaws are covered or resolved, but ultimately don't interfere with society's operation.

The libertarians are mocked because they throw the baby out with the bathwater. The liberals are mocked because they just keep making the system bigger. The conservatives are mocked because they rarely actually fix the problems. Welcome to America, where the most common use of free speech is to complain about someone else.

Alaska statute 45.48.410 explicitly permits hospitals to ask, but I can't find a statute that requires it.