On topic: As long as you can do the job you shouldn't be forced to retire. If this judge is found to be incapable of performing his duties then maybe he should be removed, otherwise, his age should have nothing to do with it.
Slightly off topic: Please don't correct other people's spelling with incorrect spelling of your own. It's spelled 'ageism'.
Unfortunately, the answer is likely both. The thing is, it is quite possible that some of the potential modifications could be dangerous so many countries require testing to prove the safety of the modified foods. This testing is expensive so, to protect their profits, the companies that produce GM seeds pay for the tests themselves, protect the output of this testing as trade secrets, and turn over the results to the pertinent government agencies so that farmers that buy their seeds can export at will. The problem here is, number one, the fact that after the patents expire these big companies have no further incentive to keep testing the products covered by expired patents and number two, the fact that these biosafety examinations are required on a recurring basis.
Honestly, I don't see why the re-authorization is required. If a genomic sequence has been approved then it can't have changed. If something has changed then doesn't that mean that the genome of the plant has changed, through either mutation or cross-pollination, and therefore would require a separate authorization anyway?
The way regulations work today, the specific genetic code of that particular harvest must be approved to be allowed to import it into certain countries. Right now the patent owners are handling that for their GM crops and since they don't allow cross-breeding, it is known that the crops that have their IP in them are compliant. The problem appears when the patents start expiring and suddenly parts of these crops are no longer having their periodic biosafety checks handled by the large corporations and now each exporter needs to deal with the massive bureaucracy that has grown up around the import/export of GM crops.
I accept that GM items, especially items for human consumption, need to be checked for safety but, for the system to be so convoluted that it requires biosafety checks whose costs can't be borne by anyone without millions of dollars to spend is quite a large problem.
My state (Michigan) actually has a 'use' tax that is the same amount as our state sales tax (6.0%). You are supposed to list on your state income tax forms any purchases that you made while present in the state from retailers that didn't charge you sales tax and pay that amount then. I don't know many non-business owners or accountants who even know about this tax let alone pay it.
The issue with this is the fact that the constitution doesn't forbid the states from levying taxes. This means that the federal government can't pass a law stating that the states cannot levy a sales tax. A state can say that its counties/cities cannot levy local sales tax but they often don't. For example in Chicago, IL the general sales tax is 9.25%. The state of Illinois charges 6.25%, Cook County charges 1.75%, and the city of Chicago charges 1.25%. It was higher but it's dropped for the last couple years. That's probably the most complicated example but it's a result of the fact that the United States was built as a union of sovereign states and even though many of those features have since gone by the wayside, many of the powers that other western governments maintain at the federal level devolve to the states since the 10th Amendment states (in full), "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So, technically, if the Constitution doesn't say that the federal government can do something, it can't.
There is an interstate commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;) that gets used, quite often actually, to grant the government the right to do things outside the specific scope of the Constitution but I don't think that forbidding the states from levying a sales tax on business that occurs within their borders would fall inside of that clause.
Actually there's an idea for a 23% (or so I can't exactly remember the exact amount) national sales tax to be used in place of income tax. It comes up every couple years but never seems to go anywhere.
I don't know about the other providers but on Sprint my MMS servers have globally accessible IP addresses. If I turn mobile data off on my device, I can't send or receive MMS data. Back when I had Cingular and AT&T they were the same. Also, aren't the basic telecommunication companies considered common carriers? Doesn't that protect them from liability caused by illegal acts committed on their networks? I know that they've avoided that nomenclature for their data networks but I thought that their SMS/MMS services were still covered.
Nice idea but this may also freeze out the people in supporting their prefered candidates. Would your plan also stop private citizens or groups thereof from buying advertising supporting specific candidates? For example, would I be able to buy a TV spot supporting my local representatives campaign if I choose? If not, since I actually am a person, that would seem to be a bit of a limitation on my freedom of speech.
The problem in this case is the fact that the offensive tweets were using a hashtag '#aGoodJew' which was already being used by another organization for positive tweets. So if you searched on that hashtag you'd also get those offensive tweets.
Mind you, I don't agree with the idea of criminal liability arising from either factual free speech or any opinion however, even granting the fact that France has laws against anti-semitic hate speech, unless Twitter has physical offices in France, they should not be subject to French law. Just as companies without American offices shouldn't be subject to American law.
It is fortunate that so many people have decided to take action and actually involve themselves in the running of their government. However, this is only a beginning. We as a people need to continue being involved in our government or we will begin to discover the issues with democracy in action just like the Soviets discovered the inherent corruption that comes with Communism once you move from plans on paper to reality.
Democracy, even in the form of a republic requires an informed and motivated citizenry to keep it running properly. The problem in reality is that too large a portion of the American citizenry is apathetic or simply uninformed. I'm not sure how we can keep the entire adult population, or at least a large enough percentage to matter, informed and motivated enough to actually care what happens in our government. It pains me when I think about it since I can't come up with a solution that is actually plausible.
Now before I get flamed, I am not calling all those who disagree with me uninformed but, I must imagine that if we were actually more informed then maybe our elected and appointed officials wouldn't be able to do things like this so easily.
I agree with the previous cap being too low but 100,000 seems too high to me. I think 50,000 or 75,000 would be a more fair number. However, I am lacking one piece of information. Did the amount of time allowed to reach the cap go up? If not then there may be another issue with this methodology.
§311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
This little piece of law means that I, as a male citizen between 17 and 45, am a member of the 'militia of the United States' and if a militia created by federal law isn't 'well-regulated' then I don't know what is ^_^
That's only on T-Mobile though. On the other networks it's still the same.
Side note concerning T-Mobile's network coverage: I was considering switching to T-Mobile from Sprint for my next device (since I can't get a Nexus 4 that works on Sprint). However, a friend with T-mobile service visited my apartment last week and we discovered that T-Mobile not only doesn't have 4G service at my apartment, they don't even have 3G coverage here >_
Well, in this (Sandy Hook) case the shooter was an adult. I agree with your ideas but I don't think they're directly relevant to this particular story. After all, most stores that I've been to voluntarily check id for M rated games to insure that no-one under 17 can buy them.
I voted your comment insightful but, I feel that I have to note that local broadcast channels (a local ABC affiliate in your example) are actually REQUIRED to be carried by the local cable operator and, unless there's a separate re-transmission agreement in place, the broadcast station operator isn't allowed to charge for the station. For example, in my area if Disney and Charter couldn't come to an agreement then I may lose ESPN and Disney but I'd keep my local ABC station and Charter would just re-transmit that station at no cost, from Disney, to them.
That's a bit of a worry for me but I'm comforted by the fact that, so far, the people who can show that their WiFi was open when the alleged infringing activity occurred have been able to end the proceedings against themselves.
I'm currently doing something similar but with only one router. I have a build of Tomato-USB installed on my E3000 that makes this simpler (not easy really) to do. I've limited the bandwidth of the open section to about 1/4th of my total available bandwidth and I've segregated it so that the open side can't access my computers or the router configuration pages (at least not by web or telnet I left ssh available just in case). I feel like I'm making a contribution while not adversely effecting my own network security.