Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Da Geezer]

But that's not new. Obama slowed the pace at which America shits on Muslims, but it never stopped.

And the evidence that "America shits on Muslims" is . . . . .?

[iam416]

Is there any substantive difference between something that's actually codified into law and an executive order?

Valid EOs have the effect of law. So, if it's valid and being enforced against you, then no, not really. There are numerous differences in the terms of process and force. EOs can't conflict with legislation. Legislation can obliterate EOs. Process-wise, legislation can only be undone by, well, legislation. EOs can be undone by the stroke of a pen.

That's why Obama tried to pass legislation before resorting to EOs. Far greater permanence.

So, with this particular EO, if the Court finds it defective in some way then the Government has two options: (1) appeal; or (2) simply sign another EO that cures the defect. (2) is the path of least resistance and (1) is the path of the prideful. So, heh, DJT will surely appeal....

[iam416]

Talent, is there any way of finding out if the US actually had representation in the four cases in which the Judges issued an order?

It was almost surely a Temporary Restraining Order motion that requires no notice to the other side. You file for the TRO, state your substantive case and if the Judge thinks you have a good chance to ultimately win then the Judge will stay (suspend) the law for 10 days. At whatever hearing that follows the Government will be present and have its say.

So, no, the government had no say in the hearing that led to the Stay.

It's also critical, IMO, to read the Judge's order and understand that the issue was that the EO would prevent those who are validly authorized by the US from entering the country. No exception was made for people in transit or for people with valid authorizations to enter -- or so the Judge thinks.

The Judge did not say the EO, in its entirety, is wrong. The Judge said it's probably wrong as applied to the specific group of people I mentioned.

[iam416]

You are exactly correct that the Muslim ban is not based on facts. It's based on bigotry and fear. That's a big problem.

Well, the 7 countries weren't pulled out of a hat. They are identified, by US Code and Regulations, as hotspots terror activity. And it's obviously not a muslim ban, or, if it is, it does a terrible, terrible job of banning muslims.

[hack]

So, this is an interesting point of thought when it comes to terrorism. It's quite clear terrorists aren't going to put down their weapons and say, hey, thanks for being nice to us! I think the correct read on Islamic terrorism is that there is no effective mitigation policy other than action. The speak softly angle, though, gets to who helps with that action. It's easier to get, e.g., Saudi assistance or Jordanian assistance if you're not shitting on them. And so forth.

I think there's a subset of the larger group called ``terrorists'' who actually will put down their weapons if only some American stroked their egos a little bit. One way in which terrorist groups are just like any other is that there are bullshitters at the top and suspicious people amongst the footsoldiers. That is of course not to say that we should just be nice to terrorists. I think that a show of overwhelming force would be the best possible way to shut everybody the fuck up over there. Since the Iraq invasion however it's clear to me and many others that the US does not have what it takes to do this properly. It may have the desire and the weaponry but it does not have the political will or the intelligence. We pay a lot of people a lot of money to know about the Middle East, and do not get good bank for our buck. But, overall, a range of balanced policy approaches would be good.

[Da Geezer]

Hack said:

.What I would do in this case, if I were government, is to build the damn thing myself. I have the lowest cost of capital, and if the thing is going to be profitable, then I should be in that game too. Reduce the pressure on taxpayers to fund government. .....I've always thought that privatization doesn't necessarily make sense. The idea that putting big public assets in private hands makes them more efficient is bunk. We've done it enough times to know. That was just self-interested garbage made up by investors looking to score monopoly-prone assets on the cheap.

This is a snapshot of how your Marxist view of capital colors your outlook. If the projects that the interview dealt with can be fully financed by the private sector, and the funding is totally in place today, why not let the individual investors take the risk rather than forcing me to take the risk through taxes. The result will be the same, ie. a Texas Panhandle to Georgia transmission line for wind power.

I simply don't understand why the US would oppose a totally privately-financed infrastructure project of any description. In the case of the Houston-Dallas high-speed train, the interviewee mentions "land value capture" as the reason private investors are willing to put up the money to support the train between the nation's 4th and 5th largest cities (through relatively cheap land in between). This is how actual wealth is created. And again, if the projections are wrong, the investors eat the costs.

Hack, the only reason to spend tax dollars to do these projects is to wring out any "profit" and allegedly "capture" it for the government. But. . . . this has never happened in any project where public money has taken over a project which the private sector is ready to execute. Can you name any? Other than the five-year plans in the Soviet Union, I mean.

Hey, I want the infrastructure to be built, and if that means investors make a profit, good for them.

[entropy]

I'm all for a smaller gov't, but I think one of their roles is to provide infrastructure. jmo

[hack]

Matty Moroun, Geezer. Not all infrastructure is the same. Transmission line -- no biggie. But the economy would be better if we didn't have an old-school Lebanese monopolist owning the most important border-crossing. Take a look at what he's done to the Port of Detroit. Ask GM about logistics if there weren't a monopolist creating a bottleneck at the most important crossing, from which he can profit at the expense of everyone else. This is why you have to be suspicious of private ownership of infrastructure. Here's a link in which GM executive wishes for the ability to use Great Lakes ports to lower its costs.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG0f229r_fc&feature=youtu.be&t=25m"]Automotive Logistics Global 2016: The automotive logistics world - YouTube[/ame]

[AlabamAlum]

Change of pace:

Looking for a new laptop. Always had a PC laptop, though I do have an iPhone and an iPad, so I'm not anti-apple.

Anyway, Consumer Reports now recommends the MacBook.

Is it worth the extra cash? Will I have compatibility issues with existing files, and is the learning curve significant if I have never had an Apple laptop, or will my iPad experience make for a seemless transition?

Thanks in advance.

[The Oracle]

Surface pro.

[Wild Hoss]

Anything but a Dell.

I will add that, insofar as light home-use goes (websurfing, video streaming, etc) a Chromebook is worth looking into...if you're a gmail guy. Light, great battery life, boots up in about 3 seconds. As it essentially just a browser, risks for viruses are minimal, and they run fast as get-out with midrange processors. Cheap too....I bought the Mrs a folding, touchscreen version that doubles as a tablet for $249.00.

We bought one three years ago, (still runs like a champ) and now have four.

[AlabamAlum]

I have need for MS Access, Publisher, Word, Ppt, and Excel. I'm not sure if a Chromebook is viable for that.

The Surface is the laptop/pad combo deal, right?

[hack]

I have an older Surface. Great product for the most part. Crap battery, but I no longer have to take my laptop when travelling. It cannot be used in cars though, unless you angle it just right against the dashboard or are in the back and can rest the screen against the back of the front seat.

I like Lenovo laptops. Still same old IBM quality. No better keyboard to type on. I have one that's three years old and is fantastic and one that is five years old and just won't die. They are tanks. It has always been said that Lenovo uses many of the same components as mac.

[The Oracle]

I have need for MS Access, Publisher, Word, Ppt, and Excel. I'm not sure if a Chromebook is viable for that.

The Surface is the laptop/pad combo deal, right?

Correct. I have a 3 or a 4 and I can do everything I need. Should cover you for all that you listed as well.

[The Oracle]

I have an older Surface. Great product for the most part. Crap battery, but I no longer have to take my laptop when travelling. It cannot be used in cars though, unless you angle it just right against the dashboard or are in the back and can rest the screen against the back of the front seat.

I like Lenovo laptops. Still same old IBM quality. No better keyboard to type on. I have one that's three years old and is fantastic and one that is five years old and just won't die. They are tanks. It has always been said that Lenovo uses many of the same components as mac.

Yours doesn't have the stand that pops out of the back? I've never had an issue using it on cars or trains.