A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
the difference, while perhaps not of constitutional relevance, is that once the government enters into the role of merely "facilitating" transactions between two private parties, rather than taking land for its "own" use, there is no practical check on the number of takings that are likely to occur--it's merely a question of how big the checkbooks of the buyers are.

You came up with a theory in a PM that made a lot of sense to me, but this isn't it. Are you arguing that a particle accelerator doesn't have public benefit? If the government started building one, and then realized it need another 1/2 mile of land for the thing to work, no one would have any trouble with the idea that it could use the power of eminent domain to take the land, and then compensate the prior owners at a fair rate. That's not "facilitating" a transaction, even though the government surely has the alternative of trying to reach a negotiated price or walking away. Why should the result be any different if a private party is going to build the accelerator?

BTW, let's address railroads, because there's an important distinction there: they are common carriers (or were), which meant that the public was entitled to use them, albeit at some (often regulated) cost. Another distinction is that many of those cases are over 100 years old, and our concepts of "common" in common carrier have probably changed somewhat--they were much more public utilities than we might think of them now.

So a private developer just needs to build a movie theater, or offer paid tours, right?

And I don't know the cases -- I'm just making up hypotheticals to try to keep up with Greedy x3.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Holy fuck- even hotter than /Eva- if their periods co-incide then string theory becomes a "strong theory" correct Adder?

and here's a typical conference she was at------

http://www.mathematik.uni-muenchen.d...cent/talks.htm

here she is----




and here's the only comp at this conference-



i bet she doesn't even know what a sandwich costs at these conferences. they probably have a lottery to see what yutz erases her board mid-lecture......

[Tyrone Slothrop]

No Comment Dept.

• D. Reed Freeman, the "Chief Privacy Officer" of Claria Networks (formerly Gator), the creators of the pervasive spyware package GAIN, has been appointed to the Department of Homeland Security's "Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee".

Slashdot, via Julie Saltman

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I never said common carriers weren't allowed to earn a profit--but they were at least open to the public. Your point goes to the under-regulation of the rates they charged, though, which is different (or at least is considered different as a matter of common carrier law, which posits that the principle evil to be combatted is price and service discrimination)

Well, I am saying, the stuff in the new development in New London is going to be open to the public. So does that mean that the New London development is equivalent to the RRs in your view? I didn't think that was your position, but I get you mixed up with Aloha and Greedy sometimes for no reason I can figure out, so I may be wrong.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No Comment Dept.

• D. Reed Freeman, the "Chief Privacy Officer" of Claria Networks (formerly Gator), the creators of the pervasive spyware package GAIN, has been appointed to the Department of Homeland Security's "Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee".

Slashdot, via Julie Saltman

What did GAIN do? I tried to track back through links but ended up at Salon and don't feel like watching their ad, given that the likelihood they will have an explanation is low.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Well, I am saying, the stuff in the new development in New London is going to be open to the public. So does that mean that the New London development is equivalent to the RRs in your view? I didn't think that was your position, but I get you mixed up with Aloha and Greedy sometimes for no reason I can figure out, so I may be wrong.

No--a common carrier is a legal status that's mainly irrelevant these days. But if it were a public park, not private condos, they were installing, then, yeah, public use. But they're condos, so it's not a common carrier. And if it were some other entity that had been legally granted the status of common carrier (telephone, cable tv, bus) the same argument would potentially apply. So, basically what I'm saying is that an entity's status as a common carrier has significance for takings cases--perhaps it shouldn't, but if you want to distinguish the RR cases, that's one possible way to do it.

I'm offering a distinction for Ty on his railroads cases. And it's different than the theory I was positing in IM, because it's addressing a different distinction.

And for Ty, I already explained the difference--it's a lot more treacherous if the government is acting as broker than buyer.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No Comment Dept.

• D. Reed Freeman, the "Chief Privacy Officer" of Claria Networks (formerly Gator), the creators of the pervasive spyware package GAIN, has been appointed to the Department of Homeland Security's "Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee".

Slashdot, via Julie Saltman

Sure--so you ask him to tell everyone about their techniques. Besides, it gives the advisory committee representation of all views.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
What did GAIN do?

• What does Gator/GAIN do?
  
  As a general rule, Gator applications do a lot more than the original purpose that may have persuaded you to download them. Some of these things are spelled out in Gator's license, that very long document that most users inevitably don't read very carefully.
  
  GAIN displays advertising. A lot of pop-up advertising if you visit popular web sites or search for advertiser's hot words like "auto loan". Our experience was that its advertising was sometimes poorly targeted and therefore unlikely to be helpful.
  
  GAIN interrupts your work. Usually, your computer does things as a result of your own actions. GAIN actions don't follow that pattern. Their ads are often timed to pop up a few seconds after you've finished clicking on a link or entering data, which can be very distracting. If you want some more examples, see our review of Search Scout.
  
  GAIN collects extensive information. Perhaps Gator doesn't know who you are, but it certainly collects a lot of information when you consider all the things that the company lists in its Terms and Conditions. Take our Gator license quiz and see how well you know it.
  
  GAIN uses up valuable system resources. Gator's simple WeatherScope application takes up about 14 megabytes of memory because of the GAIN software that comes with it. It also uses up 15 percent of system resources on Windows Me. On systems with small amounts of memory this can degrade performance or cause system instability.

linky

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
it gives the advisory committee representation of all views.

So we are going to see some al Qaeda representation on there too? Cool.

[Replaced_Texan]

Holy shit, they're on to us:



Thanks to Gutbloom

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I have far less of a problem with job retraining than I do with straight up benefits, which I thought is what he was suggesting.

I have no idea what you meant here.

The trouble with your plans to push free trade with and immigration from low wage countries is that you will depress the middle class' standard of living relative to the upper class and perhaps also in absolute terms. At some point the middle class will find this unacceptable and demand some combination of xenophobic policies to protect them from free trade or immigrants and high levels of government benefits funded by taxes on the upper class. I prefer the former because I think a society is healthier where people support themselves with some kind of labor without receiving payments from the government. If that's inefficient, who cares? The end all of politics is not efficiency, it's helping your constituents. If maximizing their slice of the pie requires inefficient produciton, so be it.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So I don't think this has been discussed. Anyone actually think he was wrong?

If a university president's job is to represent the faculty, he's doing a poor job. His ideas aren't representative of the faculty's.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
If a university president's job is to represent the faculty, he's doing a poor job. His ideas aren't representative of the faculty's.

In my experience, the University President has two jobs that are intertwined: recruit good faculty and raise a shitload of money. I'm not seeing how the comments could lead to either result.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
In my experience, the University President has two jobs that are intertwined: recruit good faculty and raise a shitload of money. I'm not seeing how the comments could lead to either result.

I don't think chicks are wired properly to fully understand administrative roles in Universities.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
The trouble with your plans to push free trade with and immigration from low wage countries is that you will depress the middle class' standard of living relative to the upper class and perhaps also in absolute terms. At some point the middle class will find this unacceptable and demand some combination of xenophobic policies to protect them from free trade or immigrants and high levels of government benefits funded by taxes on the upper class. I prefer the former because I think a society is healthier where people support themselves with some kind of labor without receiving payments from the government. If that's inefficient, who cares? The end all of politics is not efficiency, it's helping your constituents. If maximizing their slice of the pie requires inefficient produciton, so be it.

Several responses:

1. I think you assume a static, rather than dynamic economic state. I also think you are failing to fully consider the likely affect on our exports. Free trade is not one sided.

2. I'm still thinking through the whole immigation question.

3. I've heard your "natives are restless" theory before as a justification for the death tax, and I don't buy it. We heard a lot about outsourcing in the last election. Guess what. At the end of the year, the administration actually hit it's 2.2 million new jobs estimate and unemployment is about as low as can be expected and certainly lower than most other industrial nations, especially Europe. Now you may quibble with the quality of jobs or the manner in which the rate is calculated, but in any event, that is really just at the margins.

4. Politicans help their constituents most when they think long term and don't make rash decisions for political gain.

5. Your plan to compensate people sets up exactly the wrong incentive. Given a choice between work and no work, what would you choose? Retraining is a different matter and has some merit, but I would rather see those costs absorbed by the ultimate beneficiaries of that training (i.e., the employers).