I did that once. Picked up the wrong Thinkpad. Didn't notice until I was at the gate.
Opened it up to do some work...Hey, this isn't mine.
Rush back to get mine, and "Where's the dude that belongs to this one?" Oh well. Not my problem anymore.
And of course voters in LA don't count.
True. And the cost/arrest concept is broken too. Would the arrests have been made anyway? Could they have been made another way?
When people have a tool they use it, whether it is the use-case that was supposed to justify the purchase -- and that can be a good thing (because the widget is earning its keep) or a bad thing (using a tool that's overkill, to expensive to operate, or counterproductive). The real question is what did they specifically buy this for? If the cost justification was that it was going to allow them to make x arrests per year, it's probably a failure. If the cost justification is some other kind of scenario that doesn't necessarily happen every year (e.g. the Beltway Sniper), then the question is whether they're using this thing reasonably.
Robert Sheckley wrote a short story named "The Necessary Thing", it is perfect for this discussion of self replicating replicators that discover masturbation.
You do realize that the federal government does allocate funding for schools in the exact same manner as highways and food stamps or housing and so on right? Outside of social security and medicare, it is all passed to the states for the state equivalent program to administer with strings attached to how it can be spent. The bulk of all of that is funded by state and local entities in the same way schools are funded. Highways are funded through a fuel tax and certain excise taxes on tires and such but the federal government has a constitutional right to establish post roads (highways)
And I didn't realize the context of your comment at first. I should have replied to the grandparent instead of you. But the manner in which taxes are collected is not an excuse, it is the order of things. The feds only have as much power as was ceded by the states via the constitution and their ability to stretch clauses beyond obvious meanings. War is a constitutional role for the federal government, schools- not so much. The same with everything else you listed. It exists as some stretch of some related power granted to congress which is why the funding is passed to the states to administrate.
The US government has never funded schools by much to begin with. It simple isn't their job to and all the funding they do give comes with strings saying how and when the funding can be spent.
The states and local municipalities largely fund schools and those political entities do not fund the wars. Your decrease funding to pay for a war might sound good but it shows a lack of knowledge on the scope and magnitude of education funding in the US.
You are correct to a degree. But this wouldn't be an ex post facto law. It would be the same as a no smoking in a public building law. It just means that actions that was once legal (smoking at the courthouse) is now not legal. So existing contracts would just become unenforceable in respect to the law after the law takes effect but nothing makes the provisions before the law takes effect illegal or punishable. This is further complicated with Calder v. Bull which sort of takes the line that only criminal laws can be ex post facto. So unless this law provides criminal punishment, the courts would likely ignore any ex post facto claims.
Now if the law says anyone who had one of these contracts before the law takes effect will be fined or imprisoned or otherwise punished, the ex post facto clause certainly would become valid. But a new law just means you have to change your behavior from the date it takes effect.
Interestingly, we have seen this ex post facto law situation with interest rates in which congress changed the rates for the Stafford student loan program to rates lower than contracted rates for a period of time from July 1 to to august 9th of 2013. H.R.1911 actually has language in it saying that it takes effect as if it was passed on July 1st 2013 even though it was signed into law a over a month later. Yet nobody challenged it.
It doesn't matter what score or moderation the parent is. I as everyone should, surf slashdot at -1 and give bonuses to troll and other down mods specifically because people with agendas will use the moderation system to hide dissent.
So to a regular logged in user, your point is largely lost unless that user is only looking for an echo chamber to agree with themselves. Otherwise, they would have modified their levels also and view low scoring post.
Not only that, these are cities which are political subdivisions of larger governmental entities who hold power and control over them. It may be impossible for them to actually ban anything of the sort if the higher political entity doesn't agree or allow it. For instance, the population of other cities in the same political entity would be bared from entering in a vehicle that is otherwise perfectly legal and registered under their laws.
Imagine France saying this vehicle is legal to purchase and drive and your vehicle registration is good everywhere except Paris who decided to make up their own rules. Not sure how that will play out but I don't think France's federal government will like being overridden that easily by a subordinate jurisdiction.
At 55-70 mph, a 600 mile trip out on day one, load or unload, and a 600 mile return trip on day two to do the same is easily doable. It is not more than 11 hours driving and with the higher speed limits, just a little over 9 hours (you will not average 70 mph for the entire trip).
But you are also forgetting team truck drivers where one person sleeps on the first shift and then takes over when the first shift driver's time is up. The team drivers could easily cover 1200 miles within a single day.
The summery says it has a sleeper and all so either scenario is doable.
Yes, but the people inside them still have to make the choice to acquiesce to immorality.
Working for a corporation doesn't make you a robot.
If you're in favour of this then you're a fascist or you're an idiot.
Unfortunately having read history books myself I'm rather unconvinced that being in favor it is the critical question. I think the critical question is this: would you go along with it?
That is still hypothetical, you still have no idea what the official requirements would be.
Sure you do. It would require Muslims to be registered and tracked.
I assume that thirty one million dollars in a two-trillion dollar economy won't be noticed by anyone -- except, obviously, the people enjoying it.
I am 100% against all forms of taxation, have been 100% against all forms of taxation. I am not against charity though and this is charity.
I wonder why you don't see that this type of charity is much better than any form of taxation for the purposes outlined in the story? So if FB had to pay more taxes than it managed to pay (legally, but I don't care, I think everybody needs to hide 100% of their money from all forms of taxation legally or illegally, whatever) why would it be better for your position? Why would it be better to take money from a company and use it for all the things that government uses it instead of using it specifically to attempt some form of charity that government pretends it's doing?
Let's say FB had to pay 10Million USD in income taxes (I don't know the numbers, could be many times that) so why wouldn't it be better to have that money go directly to the cause they are supporting instead of funnelling it through any form of government at all?
Is it because you cannot stand the idea that there is no oppression by the mob involved there?
In every hierarchy the cream rises until it sours. -- Dr. Laurence J. Peter