Why this distinction matters is that the problem with our healthcare isn't so much the insurance, but the out-of-control costs for the care itself (ridiculously expensive hospital bills, compared to what it costs to get the same procedure done in western European private hospitals, for instance). Obamacare didn't do anything at all to fix the problem of these out-of-control costs...
The ACA not only "didn't do anything at all to fix the problem of these out-of-control costs", but actually made the problem worse.
The out of control healthcare costs are why this administration is trying to reduce overall costs by:
* creating a 2.3% medical device excise tax for manufacturers and importers.
* increasing percentage (10%) of your income you must spend in unreimbursed medical costs before they can be used in itemized deductions on your tax return.
* forcing parents cover the cost of insurance of "children" until the "children" are 27 granted this makes it cheaper for the "children" but not for the parents
* creating an annual fee (i.e. tax) for certain health insurance providers (granted this does not directly increase the cost of healthcare)
Please note that these are just the first few I found (on government sites) after a few seconds of searching, so this list certainly is not exhaustive.
So... is electric a service or a product? Since you can't possess or store it I think the law considers it a service (You start and stop your electric service).
If you cannot store electricity, then what is a battery or capacitor and why did the man plug his car into the school's outlet? If I have physical possession of a fully charged battery, how am I not in possession of the electrical charge stored within the battery?
I believe the service part of "electric service" is the service of delivering electricity to your home. If I have water service from a local water delivery company, the service is for the delivery of the service and I pay the delivery company based upon how much water I requested.
You're confusing "CA" with "third party CA." You need a CA to have a certificate. Hint: the "C" in "CA" stands for "Certificate."
You are confusing a certificate with a certificate which most users trust (aka a Certificate Authority). A root certificate from a known Certificate Authority (i.e. an organization) is just a self signed certificate which is trusted by a large group of users. You need to have a certificate to have a CA, a CA without a certificate is well, useless.
The certificate usages 2 and 3 in the DANE specification should work with a self-signed X.509 cert and thus work without needing to involve a recognized CA, third-party CA, formal CA, or what ever you choose to call it.
I mean, I guess you could just open an editor and type something out that looks like a certificate pair, but it won't be mathematically usable, and it won't work when you try to do a Diffie-Hellman key exchange with it
Was this even suggested or are you trying to make yourself appear more intelligent by refuting an unmade claim which is condescendingly absurd?
Unless I run my own DNS, which is far easier than running a CA.
Not if you are using DNSSEC, it isn't. You talk about running your own DNS under those conditions as though a self-signed cert doesn't require a CA; it does. There's no such thing as certs without a CA...
DANE (DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities) RFC6698 does NOT require the use of a recognized CA, although it does not disallow it. There are four "usage" types for certificates (excerpts from the RFC follows):
- Certificate usage 0 is used to specify a CA certificate, or the public key of such a certificate, that MUST be found in any of the PKIX certification paths for the end entity certificate given by the server in TLS.
- Certificate usage 1 is used to specify an end entity certificate, or the public key of such a certificate, that MUST be matched with the end entity certificate given by the server in TLS.
- Certificate usage 2 is used to specify a certificate, or the public key of such a certificate, that MUST be used as the trust anchor when validating the end entity certificate given by the server in TLS.
- Certificate usage 3 is used to specify a certificate, or the public key of such a certificate, that MUST match the end entity certificate given by the server in TLS.
Both Certificate usage 2 and Certificate usage 3 allow a domain's administrator to issue a certificate without requiring the involvement of a third party CA. For more information on DANE, refer to either rfc6698 or the the wikipedia article.
What people like about it is that they don't have to pay the credit card companies their 4% of the sales. Instead 4square is only about 2% so small business gets to keep more of their money.
I believe you are thinking of Square which performs credit card payments, however the article is about Four Square which is some social restaurant service I had not heard of until this article. I agree that Square is immensely popular, even here in Alaska.
You know, for a bunch of well educated lawyers, the founding fathers sure drafted a terribly ambiguous amendment. It could mean:
- Own a gun? We can draft you
- Only members of a Militia can own guns
- Own a gun? You must join a militia
Actually, I think the last one should be the way it works: only people who receive proper, thorough, and repeated training in weapons handling should be allowed to have guns. It would cut down tremendously on gun accidents.
Hmm, let me enlighten you with the definition of a militia:
1. a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
1. a body of citizens organized for military service
3. the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.
Actually, since the militia during the time of the revolutionary war and the militia used in the suppression of Shay's Rebellion consisted of able-bodied male citizens whom were not professional soldiers or apart of a government military force, I think the last one is the definition intended by the founding fathers.
You in the U.S. has your gun laws exactly for cases like this. The original idea was, when government (or its minions) eventually gets too tyrannical
No, the original idea was so they could form militia and defend themselves without having an expensive military. The military was explicitly not to be given funding for more than two years at a time precisely for this reason. It's all in the constitution.
Look what happened: we ended up with the - by far - most expensive military in the world, and people buying guns for reasons the founders never intended.
No, the grandparent post is correct. The founding fathers were very weary of a strong central government. This is why the first government based upon the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was so weak it was unable to leavy taxes and fund an army to suppress the Shay's Rebellion and instead the rebellion was suppressed with a privately funded army.
The second amendment is a compromise in choosing between a weak central government and strong federal government. To quote the second amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The active part of the second amendment is "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,". The right is not imparted to the individual states, but to the people. The right to bear arms is part of the checks and balances between the rights of the People and the power voluntarily given to the government by the people.
Have the DNC set aside $400k or so to keep a 3 member team of coders updating it for the next 4 years. Don't forget, there are midterms in 2 years.
Hmm, I'm guessing they would need to set aside the "or so" since $400k comes out to $16.03/hour if the team has 3 full time members. Taking into account office supplies, equipment costs, and labor overhead costs, the members would be lucky if they each make $10/hour. The DNC would need to set aside $873,600 just to cover the base salaries of 3 devs making $35/hour for four years.
you're talking about porting half of OS X to windows and linux!
I would fully support Apple porting the OS X Objective-C frameworks to Windows and Linux since it would allow an iOS/OS X developer to write cross platform applications without needing to learn a second widget library or use a second language.
That is not just my two cents, I'd back up those two copper Lincolns with green Franklins if Apple considered making UIKit and AppKit cross platform.
For something of a smartphone class, a one-off PCB may cost several hundred dollars. Then the parts will cost another several hundred dollars in small quantities, as well as being difficult to obtain. Now, you have to solder the parts onto the board, which is a decidedly nontrivial thing - and if you decide you want someone else to do this, it's probably another several hundred dollars.
$10 setup fee plus either $2.50 (2 layer) or $4.00 (4 layer) per square inch of PCB board. So a 4.5" by 2.5" PCB would cost between $38 and $55 for the first board, which is a tad less than several hundred dollars. Granted, I do not know much about PCB classifications, so it may not be smartphone class, but I would think DIY open source hardware would not be designed so to an extremely narrow physical layout which could not be done by hand.
I'm not associated with either SparkFun or BatchPCB, I've recently run across them since I started researching how to get a custom PCB for a toy I am designing for my son.
My comment was in response to a comment which stated that
All "open source" is prohibited in many app stores.
Speaking from my experience, you are spot on. A few years ago I started migrating the few libraries I have written from the LGPL to a modified BSD license just for this reason. It is also why I am more inclined to hunt down bugs and submit patches for non-GPL/LGPL software packages.
Why do you think open source is prohibited on many app stores?
I recently released an LDAP administrator for the iPad which is built around the OpenLDAP libraries. In the about section of the app, I clearly state that the app uses OpenLDAP, OpenSSL, and Cyrus-SASL libraries. I also provide links to a framework on github which I developed to provide the visual elements and convenience classes used within the app. When submitting the app to Apple, I disclosed that the app uses OpenSSL.
The app was approved in less than a week by Apple. If they were anti open source, would they have approved an app that makes liberal use of open source libraries?
Further more, how is it anti ethical to use open source software in iOS? I release the parts of my software I think might be useful to others under a modified BSD license and fully expect others to use it in both proprietary and open solutions.