I keep seeing this come up and I haven't seen anyone able to tell me how this meshes with the Nelson V. Sears decision:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/312/359/case.html

SCOTUS has already spoken on this issue. I thought taxation of interstate commerce was settled law.

I was taught that if you didn't like the money, don't do the job. I'm tired of hearing so many people drone on and on about how little teachers make.

$50k is a good living - that's a little over $24/hour if they worked all year, which they don't. It takes a lot of 10 hour days and training sessions to make up for all of the time off they get.

I'm not even going to go into unionization, government job security and the lack of uniform performance requirements.

Whenever I hear this kind of droning - it just brings to mind a picture of Sally Strothers saying "think of the children".

Go ahead, mark me a troll - I'm just calling out nonsense where I see it.

If you're being paid to do work, you don't own the work - whoever is paying you does. If the schools don't have clauses in those teachers' contracts to that effect, then the school boards are allowing taxpayer money to fund "side work" for these teachers.

What you would have to offset is the value gained by employing people with little or no credentials in their area of expertise.

The whole argument supporting H1B visas is that there aren't enough qualified people for the jobs - and that's counting the meaningless credentials as actual qualifications. The addition of a professional society that will undoubtedly set the bar higher than it is now will only shrink the pool of "qualified" (and I mean that in the most liberal sense) persons.

Whoever it was apparently bought a smartphone without an unlimited data plan - what do you think?

However, it is still an "end around" of one of the central principles of a non-totalitarian government. I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, but it's an obvious head-first dive down the slippery slope.

I liked your response - I don't necessarily agree with some of it, but your response was pretty well thought through.

As of the writing of this post, I see 3 responses to my post and apparently I got marked down as a "troll".

I would encourage all who have posted about about what "studies" say to read:
http://www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=cellphone

This is an actual study. While it does point out that cell phone usage is a problem, it is not the boogie man that some make it out to be.

It seems closer to the "If I can't do it, it must be impossible" argument - the fallacy in this argument should be apparent. What I have found is that the people who back the anti-phone arguments fit a particular pattern:

1.) They hang on to the idea that a cell phone is a luxury and, thus, anyone using one while driving is flaunting theirs
2.) They ignore how many distractions come from the radio in the car - they would never move to ban radios
3.) They ignore how many distractions come from passengers/pets - they would never more to ban passengers/pets
4.) They hold on to the idea that if a phone was in the car, it caused the accident, no matter what the actual cause was
5.) To such people, the citing of a couple of personal examples shows what all of humankind is like
6.) They fit into the general pattern of those who want to tell others what to do

The truth is that when bad things happen, people inevitably seek to blame whatever thing/behavior that they don't like but think they have good enough chances of hanging the blame on. Aren't there any studies on actual distraction level and human tolerance for such? Statistics taken at the scene of accidents are just as unreliable as they were in the 80's when any car with any amount of alcohol in it, regardless of form (groceries, sealed bottles, etc) was considered an "alcohol-related" accident.

Let's hope that they got permission from the patients' doctors first.

I would think that getting the patients' permission would be a little more important.

If it were the case that an unfortunate side effect of the upgrade was the loss of interoperability with a competitor product, I would agree with you. However, the situation we find ourselves in is one where we purchase hardware with the manufacturer's fingers still in it. They are able to modify the product after the original purchase (read: modify the deal after the money changes hands) and able to exercise some direct legal rights to prevent the owner of the hardware from modifying the behavior of the device (DMCA in the case of circumvention) as well as use some indirect strongarm tactics such as loss of online service should the owner of the hardware refuse a firmware upgrade. (I have seen this on the Sony PSP)

It would be a simple matter to hide behind the "unfortunate side effect" argument if the manufacturer really was using their dominant position in one product to edge out competition in another product.

- The lesson to be learned here is not to purchase proprietary hardware.

I think it would be interesting to see if there is anything in this arrangement that could be used to legally strip the manufacturers of their DMCA protections. I know that this is the exact reason companies push for "tort reform" that eliminates class action lawsuits - they don't want their customers able to organize a posse to come after them when they do actually cross a legal boundary.

It's probably the materials difference. Custom composites, titanium and aircraft aluminum (fighter jet bodies) are expensive - so is the ruggedized computing equipment (aka avionics).

I work for a defense contractor (not LM) - the profit margins are not the bonanza that everyone makes them out to be.

This job is mostly labor - probably not much in the way of parts.

I read the article yesterday at Yahoo - the one thing that kept coming to mind was this:
The best way to avoid being the victim of false accusations is to not be in the subset of people eligible to be accused. With a system like this, everyone's inclusion is automatic unless you're willing to be an "unperson".

Maybe I'm making my self a target for ageism, but aren't a lot of FOSS activities typically conducted by your handle (i.e. not your name)? How could anyone know your gender with any certainty? I suppose someone could say that a person's choice of a handle speaks to their gender, but I've seen quite a few people who manipulate others by intentionally choosing a misleading handle.

If the game was set in 2112, you'll have a bit of a wait - the factory hasn't been built yet.