Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Makers and takers (Score 1) 676

The difference is that the article frames the situation as taking money from someone and giving it directly to someone else, implicitly welfare when the truth is that the government is taking money and spending it on behalf of someone else. Quite frankly all government spending is on behalf of someone, DOT spending on behalf of travelers, DOE spending on behalf of students, etc. If you don't like the concept of government spending tax dollars on behalf of someone, you need to reexamine the concept of government.

These stories pop-up every year around tax time in order to rile people up about how much taxes they pay. They're passed around a repeated without critical comment and then disappear for another year. A better metric would be to examine the efficiency of our government vis-a-vis comparable developed governments. Is our government spending more efficient or less than Canada, the UK, France, Germany, and Japan? That's the real scandal.

Comment: Re:Makers and takers (Score 3, Insightful) 676

Except that this fact isn't correct, which makes me wonder if anyone bothered to fact check the original article. The article states that 38.6% of 2.6 trillion is transfer payments in the form of medicare and medicaid, that's about 1 trillion for the mathematically challenged. That encompasses basically all medicare and medicaid outlays. The problem is medicare and medicaid outlays are not payments to individuals. For example 26% of medicare outlays are to hospitals, 23% to insurance companies for medicare advantage, 13% to physicians and so on. So the article is factually wrong, a fact that I think will be overlooked by everyone.

Comment: Re:Pathetic (Score 1) 618

Well most statutes contain definitions of key terms, in fact this bill contains some definitions but not of this critical term. So you might define substantial reproduction of results as "results that have been reproduced at least ___% of the time by ____" That would take rid the bill of a considerable amount of ambiguity. And for the record yes I am a lawyer licensed in the not so great state of Tennessee.

Comment: Re:Pathetic (Score 1) 618

This is actually a very short bill which is amazingly easy to read. It looks to me like it would be hard to twist into something that is a bad thing.

On that point you're 100% wrong. In general the shorter and more vaguely written a law is, the easier it is to twist it into something completely unrecognizable. For example the bill prohibits regulations unless based on scientific and technical information that allows "substantial reproduction of results." So what does substantial reproduction of results means, if 50 studies reproduce the results and 10 studies do not, is that substantial? Who will decide? How many lawsuits will be filed over the definition of substantial reproduction. This law really is about stopping the EPA from regulating CO2 but if passed it would essentially prevent new environmental regulations by providing a sure fire basis for challenging any regulation in court. Trust me, I'm a lawyer.

Comment: Re:A Monumentally Stupid Idea (Score 1) 489

by buddhaunderthetree (#45755527) Attached to: Goodbye, California? Tim Draper Proposes a 6-Way Split

People will always disagree with each other. Learning how to work with those whom you disagree is a fundamental skill often lacking in American's today. Larger states would be able to better balance power vis-a-vie the federal government. Witness that Canada's federalism started off weak and grew stronger, while in the US federalism started off strong and grew weaker.

+ - US ITC Orders Import Ban on Older iPads and iPhones

Submitted by buddhaunderthetree
buddhaunderthetree (318870) writes "United States International Trade Commission has ordered a ban on the importation of older iPhones and older cellular capable iPads which were found to infringe upon Samsung's patents for "apparatus and method for encoding/decoding transport format combination indicator in CDMA mobile communication system."

Since this is getting much coverage I wonder how many people will get busted trying to buy cheap ipads from overseas?
More at FOSS Patents."

Comment: Drones Only Useful Against NonAdvanced Enemies (Score 1) 622

by buddhaunderthetree (#43014779) Attached to: Future Fighters Won't Need Ejection Seats

Here's the thing: Drones are fine until the EM spectrum goes to hell in a hand basket which will happen almost instantly when you're fighting an sophisticated enemy. An designed in the 60s EA-6 could probably bring down a whole squadron of drones or at least render them useless. But drones are the flavor of the month so lets waste a few billion on them.

For large values of one, one equals two, for small values of two.

Working...