And the Republican "smaller government" Rand'ian libertarian meets the end of the US economy. The road and transportation system in the US is what drives the US economy. The construction of the US interstate system created the largest and longest running economic boom the US has ever seen. In fact I'd argue that the continued decline in infrastructure funding is one of the factors in the still struggling US economy.

Free movement of people and good in a timely matter on maintained safe roadways is an essential part of our economy. Republican's used to know this but since the Rand'ians amongst them have taken over the asylum any and all government spending is bad, regardless of how important that spending is. Roads and infrastructure are key components of our economy, and you can count on one thing if these republicans get their way, which is the decline of the US economy.

Though I have no doubt that during the boom years some rural road building was over done, but to argue as this idiot does is plain foolishness. Beyond a certain traffic level gravel roads actually cost far more to maintain than asphalt or concrete roadways. In fact that cost is so high that it becomes foolish not to pave them. It's this shortsightedness that has begun to dominate the Republican party, where ideology is more important than reality.

We can only hope that the coming Republican demographic Armageddon will take place before they can cause long term permanent damage to the US economy. There are very few cases where infrastructure spending is a bad idea.

1099 Contractors can't be controlled like a regular employee. You can't train them and you can't direct their behavior (such as work hours, etc) while working. Companies don't like this, as in some of these internet companies are pulling their 1099 employees in as W2 employees so they can control them better. What these finance guys want is a new category where they can control you like a W2 employee but don't have to give you benefits like a 1099. The employer gets the best of both worlds and the employee gets bent over and taken.

I'm sure the people suggesting this would like to see the minimum wage dropped to zero as well so they can make more cash exploiting people.

The only problem with your plan is that failure to pay taxes is criminal not civil. For all your strong words, when you are looking at a decade in jail you will settle just like everyone else does.

And if you are famous or will get newspaper articles written about your prediciment you will still go to jail, just ask Wesley Snipes. He followed the advice of one of those tax crackpots and he went to jail for 3 years, even after buckling under to the government and paying back everything he owed plus the interest and penalties. The guy that convinced him to do it? 17 Years in jail. The IRS has their own courts and you are guilty in those courts unless you can prove otherwise.

Messing with the IRS is very foolish.

To also be fair there is no legitimate reason for CUDA to continue to exist as anything other than legacy support.

OpenCL exists, and as a broad open development platform that is not tied to any manufacturer it is the platform that should be used. CUDA is just nvidia trying to lock you to them. The rise of a Linux has shown the power of platforms and solutions that are manufacturer agnostic, don't fall for the old proprietary lockin trick.

These private collages, such as university of phoenix, result in 90% of the student loan defaults while they service less than 10% of students. That staggering percentage is why the Government is going after these institutions. There are MANY private schools that aren't targeted because they don't have these problems.

It would IMO to be easier to virtulize the OS if they want to demonstrate it. They could even give away the VM so people could fiddle at home.

If it's a kill with a missile it's not dog fighting. This tendency to call any kill within visual range dog fighting is inaccurate. The maneuverability becomes pretty irrelevant once the missile(s) locked on target. Your only real countermeasure at the point is flares, chaff or ECM depending on missile type.

Dog fighting as it's being referred to in this article is chasing down and trying to hit them with a cannon. It just doesn't happen anymore, the last time a plane was shot down with another planes cannon was during Vietnam. Bullets are absolutely worthless unless you are pretty close together and moving at subsonic speeds. A plane like the F-22 or F-35 with supercruise can simply gun the speed and a bullet will never hit them because it can't close the distance before gravity takes it, unless the one firing the cannon is 20' behind them.

This effort to define dog fighting as any fight within visual range is just BS to try to harm the F-35 program. I'd rather buy F-35's at this point because they are cheaper than an F-18 to build (current build costs on the F-35 are 80 million while the F-18 costs well over 100 million). And their electronic capabilities far exceed everything else, and those capabilities are what will win the next war.

The "dog fighting" in the wiki article is including planes shot down with missiles. I personally recall some of those downed aircraft and they were downed with missiles not guns. Dog fighting in reference to the this article and the "report" is in reference to fighting with cannons, not missiles. Missiles have made dog fighting a thing of the past. Modern aircraft (except for the A-10) don't even carry enough bullets to pull the trigger more than once or twice, and that includes almost every fighter plane in the world still in service.

Dog fighting is a top gun myth, it doesn't exist and hasn't for a long long time.

There hasn't been a dog fight between aircraft since Air-to-Air missiles such as the sidewinder appeared (IIRC it was around Vietnam that the last dog fight occurred). With the F-35 the air-force made a tactical decision that missile technology had made dog fighting a thing of the past.

Missile tech is so good these days that fighters can kill each other without ever seeing the other plane. And the missiles are so good they are very difficult to evade once locked in.

Regardless of whether the laws as written are correct (I would argue that the very existence of a "medallion" that costs more than the filing fee is evidence of collusion between the taxi authority and the taxi's) Uber has shown direct contempt for the rule of law. Their CEO's frequently ignore court orders, not only that but they frequently do the exact opposite of what a court has ordered. In Korea the authorities were forced to start fining drivers record amounts, in Germany the authorities had to threaten to seize cars and fines in excess of $25K. None of this should be necessary as Uber should have shut down their platform in the area when the courts ruled against the legality of their service. If they didn't like the ruling they should have complied while challenging the ruling.

I've said all along the only way to get Uber to comply with the law is stop arresting drivers and start arresting executives for facilitating breaking the law. I'm happy to see the French are finally going to follow through at least partly, I doubt targeting these executives will do the trick the Uber corporate executives will simply let them burn, though the seizure of communications may give them the evidence they need to really get the law breaking to stop, that is to issue InterPOL red notices (warrants) for the CEO and heads of Uber corporate. I firmly believe that Uber acts in total disregard of the law because of their CEO and that the only way to get it to stop is directly go after that CEO. Once he's looking at a jail term I suspect Uber will suddenly become a law abiding business.

IMO Uber acts as a corrupt organization with contempt of the law and should be targeted under RICO statutes.

Google can never be a traditional monopoly. If they abuse their status people will simply use different search engines. There is exactly zero cost to use a different search engine. This idea that we need to treat Google like ATT (who is a actual gateway to people they serve) is absurd on every level.

The problem for these people is that they haven't been able to convince others to use different search or haven't even bother trying. There should be no case for anti-trust actions against an actor that has zero cost to switch.

The government and the courts have a LONG history of ignoring what the 14th amendment says because it's inconvenient to actually take it at it's word. The expanding recognition of the power the of the 14th amendment to restrict government action is good for EVERYONE. There are still many areas where people are treated differently by government based on arbitrary and often capricious criteria. This country will only gain in freedom as those laws fall and the power of the legislature is reined in.

There are far to many laws on the books of the federal and state's code that should not be there. Such as the recent raisin ruling that revoked the ability of the state to seize peoples assets without payment. Or this law that said two people of one type are more important that two people of a different type. Or the laws that proceeded it like those that made it illegal for a two people of different ethnic backgrounds to marry.

This country gains much by this decision expanding the recognition of the powers that are restricted to the people alone by the 14th. The 14th should easily be in the top 5 most important amendments to the constitution but the courts have willfully ignored the restraints it places on government. This ruling finally places into precedent the power of the 14th.

DOMA was unconstitutional. It might have been passed by the legislature but it wasn't the law.

The majority opinion most certainly states, numerous times, that this is about equal protection under the law. (the 14th amendment). It is the entire basis of the opinion. You are falling for the snowjob Scalia tried to pull (he does so in nearly every fucking ruling he dissents on) and you didn't even bother to read the verdict.

Stop trusting what the press is telling you the ruling says and read it for yourself for once.

You are completely incorrect. In the Gore/Bush ruling the supreme court over-ruled the supreme court of Florida that had already ruled and ordered them to do something else entirely that was NOT in Florida law.

The only correct response, in that it would have abided state rights as you claim, from the SCOTUS to that suit would have been to simply refuse to hear the case because it was up to Florida and Florida alone to decide and Flordia's Supreme court and already ordered a recount.

The SCOTUS completely walked all over state rights with that case.