At least it becomes a new bill rather than a reauthorization. The stink that sticks to the yes voters is far worse for passing a new bill rather than just reauthorizing someones elses dirty work.
Like how the stink stuck with those who voted for the original PATRIOT act? Oh wait, no it didn't.
Who do you recommend as an alternative? (And did they, by any chance, support the Patriot act?)
Bernie Sanders, who voted against the PATRIOT act and its reauthorization.
If the parents of the students participating in the game haven't signed a release to have their pictures taken, and someone is taking them, then the school could have major legal issues. At our school, staff and volunteers are banned from taking anything home that has children's names on it like seating charts, absent logs, or even track schedules. It has something to do with the kids being minors.
No, it has nothing to do with the kids being minors, it has to do with FERPA, the law that is the education analog to HIPAA. It protects education information. It does not affect playing sports in a place anyone can see. Similar to how HIPAA protects a doctor disclosing your medical information, but it doesn't protect somebody else seeing your car in the parking lot of the doctor's office, or exercising in a public park even if it's because the doctor advised exercise, or even another patient posting on Facebook that they saw you in the office. Photographs of students participating in athletic events in view of the public is most certainly not FERPA protected information.
Who'd you side with? Your paying customer or some shady business that does nothing for you except cause you work without compensation?
Most companies will side with whoever has the most lawyers, which generally means the shady business.
What other job do you know of where a person can keep getting paid long after they quit the job
-CEO of a large company
-Politician
It needs to be a forumula that is based on miles driven AND weight of the car... unless Oregon actually believes that a Civic and a Big Rig cause the same amount of long term damage to a road.
But they they would either have to charge a semi a lot, or not collect anything from the Civic, in order for it to actually be based on how much road damage the vehicle causes. According to this GAO study: http://archive.gao.gov/f0302/1... a semi causes 9,600 times the road damage of a car. The article says the tax is 1.5 cents per mile. That means if the Civic is getting charged 1.5 cents per mile, then a semi should be charged $144 per mile. Or, if the semi were charged 1.5 cents per mile, then the Civic would be charged
In reality, this "fee" is just a workaround for people whining about raising the gas tax. Just raise the fucking gas tax. If it makes you feel better, call it the "fuel usage fe.e" Either way it's largely a subsidy for truck transportation.
The odometer can't tell when you've left Oregon.
So does this device simply have a flag "these miles were in Oregon" and "these miles were outside Oregon" or does it actually store more specific location data? If this is really the only reason (and not just an "opportunity") then there is no reason to store any data more specific than that, yet I am willing to bet that it does.
Although TFA also says this:
Drivers will be able to install an odometer device without GPS tracking.
So if you want to, you don't have to be tracked but then you'll be charged for any miles driven outside Oregon.
When you drive your car, I don't benefit.
But what if the "you" is the person making your food, or stocking the store that you're buying products from, or an engineer designing those products? That's just as likely as any given semi carrying the specific product you're going to buy. Also, cars cause several orders of magnitude less damage than a semi.
Ok, since you have such a great understanding of economics, please explain to me how it's a good thing that the Walton family has more wealth than 40% of Americans (that's 129 Million Americans) combined, yet pays their full-time workers so little that they can't afford food or a place to live without welfare and foodstamps? How does it help me that my tax dollars have to subsidize Walmart employees (we're not talking about lazy drug addicts, we're talking about hardworking fulltime employees) when the company makes such huge profits? How does it help the economy when those employees can't afford to buy products that other companies manufacture and sell?
Or does it just benefit the 6 Waltons that are on Forbe's list of billionaires?
(While you're at it, also explain why businesses would pay $15/h for a worker who doesn't increase revenue by significantly more than $15 for each hour he works.)
If your business requires paying wages that are so low that your workers can't make a living and to survive are still welfare and foodstamps (that my tax dollars pay for) despite working full time then your business plan is broken.
Or in many cases, the worker does increase the company's revenue by by more than $15 for each hour he/she works but they pay them less and pocket the difference (e.g. Walmart and other big box stores) and by paying lower wages and making other taxpayers make up the difference the owners of the company just get richer. That's why the Walton family has more wealth than 40% of Americans combined (that's 129 MILLION Americans). We're talking about a company whose executives take separate private jets to the same meeting just for fun to see who can get there faster. A company whose chairman (Sam Walton's oldest son) is only in the office a few times a month, and spends the rest of his time taking his private jet from his home in the Colorado mountains to go cycling in France, or hunting geese in Canada, or bio-safaris in South America, yet pays his workers so little that even though they work full time they can't afford rent and food. Are you still going to tell me that company can't afford to pay its workers a wage they can live off of?
Oh, get off your high horse and stop being so arrogant. I don't think he said he needed it to understand the code.
IF you stop insulting me for a minute, and read what I actually wrote, I think you'll find you agree with me.
Aha, I interpreted his "thing" to refer to the IDE, you interpreted it as the code he's working on. Since we're talking about what IDE people choose, I interpreted the questions to mean, "I like these features in an IDE. Does this IDE do what I want it to do?"
...what's in it for me? The answer is NOTHING. What's in it for the ATTs, Verizons, Sprints of the world is the question. If the players don't see an opportunity, this thing is dead in the water.
Well, if AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint make money off of me having this chip in my phone, then they'll pass that on to me in the form of lower monthly fees*, right?
*$0.52 Bitcoin mining credit does not include $4.83 mining & micropayments surcharge.
Code completion (intellsense, etc) support matters too. What does this thing do. Does it do what I think it should? Why or why not.
Any code base that can't be understood without Intellisense is broken. If you need auto-complete to answer those questions, then you are programming wrong (as an antidote I suggest getting rid of your IDE until you learn to do it right).
Oh, get off your high horse and stop being so arrogant. I don't think he said he needed it to understand the code. It matters to some people simply because they find it faster to use, not necessarily because they aren't capable without it. I, personally, think code completion is annoying, but I fully recognize that for some people it's great. If somebody likes it, then they should look at IDE's that have it. If somebody doesn't like it, then it's not a factor - they can use a tool without it, and I think pretty much any tool with it has an option to disable it.
Our org got hit with an ADA lawsuit recently. Our group's focus is on the web side of the lawsuit, although it encompasses many other aspects. One problem is that there are no hard-and-fast rules for what an "ADA-compliant" website is.
Some honest questions here, as I am genuinely curious, as I'd guess you've already thought of these things and have reasons why they wouldn't work:
1. Is it possible to detect when ADA-compliance is required (e.g. detect when software is in use? Is it a different browser, or browser plugin that could be detected?) and present them with an accessible-specific site, kinda like how it's common to present users with a mobile-specific site? I have no idea about the technical aspects of it, but I think the compliance aspects of it would be analogous to providing both an escalator, and an elevator for accessible-specific use. You'd just have to make sure the accessible site stayed up to date with changes made to the standard site. Or maybe if not detectable, the first p tag on the page could be something like "Click here for accessible site"?
2. Is it possible to provide an accessibility specific phone number that they can call and have a human read the website out-loud to them? It seems like that might be cheaper/easier than redesigning a whole site in some cases. This would be analogous to gas stations with a sign that tells you to honk your horn and an attendant will come pump your gas for you, rather than having to design pumps that are accessible.
It would have been cheaper for us as a country to buy a van and 24x7 attendant for every single disabled person in the country than it is to comply with ADA in construction.
While that's probably true for the current number of actual disabled people, I suspect that if you provided transportation and a servant for every disabled person, you'd multiply the number of "disabled" people by at least an order of magnitude.
Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development.
