Fraudulent speech is still speech, yet even most libertarians agree with penalizing fraud. Commercial speech being speech doesn't automatically exempt it from regulation.
I'm not the grandparent poster, and my political and economic views are well to the left (within the US spectrum). But I, too, found that many candidates were astonishingly bad in a way that no amount of training would likely have corrected for.
At my previous job, our test/icebreaker was simple: we sat the candidate down at a computer with a C++ file to read and digest for up to half an hour, left the room and then returned with this question: "So, what does this code do?" There were no tricks--the file was about 300 lines long, was designed to be readable (with meaningful variable names and occasional comments), and used only the most basic of C++ features. It did nothing more sophisticated than applying some logical tests to an input object in order to select a return value.
You know what I did that impressed the team when I was asked "So, what does this code do" on my interview? I gave a one-sentence summary before diving into details. I was skeptical when my boss told me this shortly after starting the new job. But we interviewed a dozen or so additional candidates over the following year, and half of them were only capable of giving line-by-line explanations ("Well, at the top of this function first we check if this parameter is less than 60, if so we stop and return this value, otherwise...") even after we stopped them and specifically asked for a brief high level summary. They all interpreted the individual lines of code correctly, but only half could express what the code did as a whole.
We hired three people from this group (so about 1/4 of the people we interviewed). And we did provide plenty of training, or more accurately, we each taught each other based on our individual strengths. I had more SQL experience than the rest of the team, for example, so I took on the more difficult SQL-related tasks myself while others completed simpler tasks with my advice and guidance. Similarly, another member had more experience with pthreads than I did, so he helped me whenever I had issues related to multithreading. The end result was a team where everyone had specialties but could complete basic tasks in any relevant area.
Texas has the federal government to fall back on in case of, for example, natural disaster. The federal government doesn't have such a safety net; it must self-insure. On top of that, the federal government has to be prepared for contingencies such as war that do not really apply at the state level.
The period of time, one year, is arbitrary. Requiring a balanced yearly federal budget would be like requiring a balanced personal budget every two week pay period, even though my biggest expenses occur monthly.
What we really need is some way to balance the federal budget over a much longer period of time, a decade or two perhaps, spanning a full boom/bust cycle. This is, of course, much easier said than done.
Or you can press Ctrl+Shift+Del. One of the options (which should already be checked if you used it last time) is to clear the cache. A three-key combination and a button click and you're done, with no plugins needed.
No subsidy. Household of 1, 32 years old, income high enough that there is no subsidy (put 100k or whatever). A silver plan is estimated at $272/month.
Data points for comparison (non-smoker, no pre-existing conditions):
* 2005: Employer health plan similar to a silver plan. Monthly premium was $330/month of which the employer paid 75%. (Compare $231/month from the calculator for a 25 year old.)
* 2007: Unemployed. The cheapest individual plan I could find was $500/month, similar to a silver plan; COBRA let me keep the $330/month plan but I had to pay 100% of the premium. $150/month state-subsidized option would have been available but only after I depleted my assets. (Compare $241/month from the calculator for a 27 year old.)
* 2010: Employer health plan similar to a gold plan. Monthly premium was about $600/month of which the employer paid 75%. (Calculator doesn't give numbers for a gold plan.)
* 2012: Employer high deductible health plan similar to a silver plan, with the employer paying 100% of both premium and deductible used. Monthly premium was $350/month, and will remain unchanged through 2014. (Compare $272/month from the calculator for a 32 year old.)
Now, I live in New York rather than California, so I wouldn't have the rates given by California's calculator. Instead it looks like the cheapest silver plan where I live will be $300/month.
And the amount California's insurance cost calculator shows me is $80/month cheaper than what my employer currently pays for me, and over $200/month cheaper than the cheapest plan I could find as an individual when I was unemployed over 5 years ago.
How is the government subsidizing coverage for its employees any different from private sector employers paying some or all of their employees' premiums as a job benefit?
They could simply ask--yes or no--on the tax return, then require people who are audited to bring paperwork backing it up (just like any other claim on a tax return).
How would property be divided up at the year-end "divorce" of college roommates, especially if they end up not getting along? That alone might be messy enough to discourage such sham marriages, I think.
I can't think of the last time I've heard of a Justice saying that he personally detests the ruling but 'this is what the law says'
Roberts on the constitutionality of the ACA, perhaps?
The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.
This reads to me as "I don't like it, but my hands are tied". Why mention the wisdom or fairness of the law, rather than stopping at "it is not our role to forbid it", if he thought the law was wise and fair?
The people I've talked to generally prefer "black". The key is to use it as an adjective rather than as a noun: "black" describes them, but doesn't define them. "Black people": good. "Blacks": not so good (though better than some of the alternatives).
I imagine I'd feel the same about being defined rather than described by any of my physical traits.
And this is the kind of thing an introductory philosophy of science course would cover. What are the fundamental (and typically unstated) assumptions we make about the universe in order for science to be useful, and what would the implications be if any of these assumptions were false? What are the limitations of measurement? What kind of questions can and can't be answered scientifically? What is the relationship between math and science?
Add in some formal logic and basic statistics, and students will have a better understanding of the levels of certainty in science and how to identify the assumptions to be reexamined when experimental results differ from the expectations that follow from those assumptions.
Indeed. Consider the false confession of John Mark Karr in the JonBenet Ramsey case:
"Some false confessors have a pathological need for attention," Saul Kassin, PhD, a distinguished professor of psychology at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York and professor at Williams College in Williamstown, Mass., says to explain confessions like Karr's.
"That is what everyone is speculating in the Karr case," he says. "The pathology is such that that need predominates. And everything else fades into the background." Even the risk of prison or death.
While it's certainly not the most likely scenario, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that Snowden craved attention and so claimed responsibility for something he didn't do. I can't think of an easier way to gain instant fame/notoriety of this magnitude.
Maybe he was considering leaking information, got beaten to the punch, but decided he wanted to be the one in the history books anyway.
Maybe he's sacrificing his own freedom to protect a friend who would have more to lose if revealed as the actual source of the leak.
Or maybe the simplest explanation is the correct one, and Snowden's confession is true. But we need supporting evidence before we can make this conclusion, and that's why it may be premature to call him a criminal. (To my knowledge it's not illegal to make a false confession to the public rather than the police.)
After a couple of years we just decided having her lie in bed staring at the ceiling every night was silly.
In fact, it's not just silly but counterproductive. Proper sleep hygiene includes getting out of bed if unable to fall asleep in a reasonable length of time. Otherwise it can make insomnia worse.