Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 230 posts

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#181

Post by rgbrenner »

caseysoftware wrote: post #177
rgbrenner wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

just so we're clear, you're claiming that the Congressional Budget Office -- which creates baseline budgets twice per year -- is operating outside of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (which requires it to create baseline budgets), and is instead creating budgets that are completely arbitrary. That's quite a claim. EDIT: Now that I think about it, you're clearing confusing budget requests with baseline budgets. Ev…

I've specified "agencies" since my first comment, not the CBO. In the US, those are separate branches - executive vs legislative respectively - and use different approaches to build their "baselines." CBO assumes the government continues current operations and applies the effects of new laws to create their baseline. Agencies include discretionary spending to create their baseline. All of this is noted on the Wikiped…

yes, I read the entire wikipedia article. Did you read it? Because it does not support what you're saying. You've made up a definition of baseline budgets that does not exist... it sounds like your version combines baseline budgets -- which are created by the CBO; and budget requests -- which are submitted by the various departments of the executive.

Baseline is defined by law. There's no made up definition or arbitrary budget.

Budget requests are not baseline budgets. These are two completely different things.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#182

Post by isolate »

anjbe wrote: post #180
ubernostrum wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The simple problem is that 99.999999999999999999% of self-professed libertarians I've encountered who simply say "the government should get out of the marriage business" only ever say that. They never lobby for (or introduce, if they're in a position to do so) bills to actually achieve that end, and in fact usually do nothing and let the status quo -- which until very recently was "keep the discriminatory laws on the…

Very true—what libertarians should do is promote common‐law marriage, which is permitted in 9 states. Unfortunately, over time fewer and fewer states have allowed forming new common‐law marriages. And in those states where it’s still possible, same‐sex common‐law marriage has always been illegal. So “get the government out of the marriage business” still requires active effort to change the laws. https://en.m.wikiped…

Wow, this is terrible, common law is just great for tax and separation ("divorce") purposes regardless of orientation, an excellent way to provide a measure of equality.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#183

Post by Diamons »

warfangle wrote: post #159
joeyaiello wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FCC only needs "teeth to do its job" because they are the only external force acting against cable monopolies. Some believe that, if the FCC were to have less power, it would be easier for more ISPs to come along and compete with the big guys (Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, etc.), and that this market force would be the "teeth" that prevents net neutrality. I'd argue that, to some extent, we're already seeing this ma…

The magical thinking with less regulatory power = more competition with regard to utilities like last-mile internet comes down to 1) infrastructure cost and 2) lack of access to shared infrastructure. For most potential players, it simply costs too much to even think about entering the market. Truly unregulated free markets are great in theory, but are instantly distorted when you take things like reality into accoun…

Unregulated free market theory works. When you say it's instantly distorted by reality, I think that's true if you take a small picture view of the world. But if you look at it from a 5 year, 10 year, or even 100 year perspective, the free market is what brought us Dialup, DSL, Cable, FiOS, WiFi and whatever's after WiFi. I think the free market has done a great job.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#184

Post by morgante »

steve19 wrote: post #79
robotkilla wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm honestly starting to think sander's is our last hope -- I was on the fence until seeing this. Meanwhile he is getting undermined by the media.

When do I remember hearing that before.... back in 2008. Everyone was saying the exact same thing. If you really expect Sanders will be any different if he gets in power, you are kidding yourself. If anything he is being undermined by the DNC, not the media. The DNC should be ashamed of themselves for thier blatant support of one candidate over the other(s) .

I do expect Sanders to be different because he has a 20 year record of being incredibly consistent in his political views.

His ideological framework hasn't changed in the entire time I've been following him (I'm from Vermont) and that includes going from mayor of Burlington up through US Senator.

He's also not saying things to get elected. He'd have a much better chance if he dropped some of his more socialist rhetoric, but he genuinely believes it.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#185

Post by jklinger410 »

mahranch wrote: post #144
chongli wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assume he wins and becomes president, what could he do? Judging by the way congress operates right now, not much.

> he wins and becomes president, what could he do? Yeah, this whole thing about electing the right president who will somehow magically change all the wrongs of the world overnight is a fairy tale. If someone like Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders got into office, a little would be different, especially with regards to foreign policy, but without a pliable or cooperative congress, literally nothing would get done. It would…

>Yeah, this whole thing about electing the right president who will somehow magically change all the wrongs of the world overnight is a fairy tale.

I'm not sure who you guys think you're arguing against.

I understand why you feel like you're correct in naysaying and feeling like you're adding something to the conversation by being contrary. Unfortunately you're setting up a bit of a strawman, as if people who support Bernie feel like somehow he's going to magically change everything by himself. Bernie himself said that will not be the case, and you're mostly just arguing people who have little understanding of government, who honestly aren't even taking part in this conversation.

Bernie is probably the most likely candidate to promote the idea in your comment anyway, as he's the only candidate who I feel truly wants to change the system. So even in regards to your opinion your only real candidate is Bernie. He's the only one talking about political revolution, which is what would be necessary for real change.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#186

Post by karzeem »

warfangle wrote: post #159
joeyaiello wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FCC only needs "teeth to do its job" because they are the only external force acting against cable monopolies. Some believe that, if the FCC were to have less power, it would be easier for more ISPs to come along and compete with the big guys (Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, etc.), and that this market force would be the "teeth" that prevents net neutrality. I'd argue that, to some extent, we're already seeing this ma…

The magical thinking with less regulatory power = more competition with regard to utilities like last-mile internet comes down to 1) infrastructure cost and 2) lack of access to shared infrastructure. For most potential players, it simply costs too much to even think about entering the market. Truly unregulated free markets are great in theory, but are instantly distorted when you take things like reality into accoun…

A large portion of the costs of building last-mile infrastructure come from regulations imposed by local governments.

http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-jus...

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#187

Post by j2kun »

ubernostrum wrote: post #165
j2kun wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a technical definition of "personally identifiable information"? Would they be required to provide any guarantees on the properties of the released data to ensure that when other data is shared there's no way to link them?

I don't know if there's a general-purpose one, but for medical data HIPAA has had definitions and guidelines for PII for a long, long time. The deeper problem is that any piece or amount of information can, in the right circumstances, become personally-identifiable, and so the only guaranteed-safe system would be to forbid collecting or sharing anything. Which would necessarily result in literally turning off the int…

There is some degree of mathematical guarantee that one can provide, if one is only releasing statistics and not individual records. The technique is called "differential privacy" and it was invented in large part because of a few high-profile data de-anonymization stunts, one of which was in the health industry.

At the very least, this allows one to quantify the tradeoff of security and specificity in what is released.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#188

Post by carboncopy »

ngoede wrote: post #157
um_ya wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget Rand Paul

I am pretty sure Rand Paul just votes against Budget bills in general and this has nothing to do with CISA being part of it.

This is precisely what happened; CISA was an afterthought in his letter to Time. The crux of his argument is that he wanted to reduce the size of government by 15%.

http://time.com/4154635/rand-paul-paul-ryan-omnibus-spending...

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#189

Post by joshfraser »

herbig wrote: post #85
randomname2 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 14 votes against, FWIW: Baldwin (D-WI) Booker (D-NJ) Brown (D-OH) Coons (D-DE) Franken (D-MN) Leahy (D-VT) Markey (D-MA) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Paul (R-KY) Sanders (I-VT) Udall (D-NM) Warren (D-MA) Wyden (D-OR) https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151022/10133932597/cisa-...

I'm a very liberal persion, but I really like Rand Paul. I just wish he didn't think gays were going to burn in hell for all eternity, or at least would stick to libertarian principles on the issue and let people live how they want to live. The same with abortion laws. I'd be way more into supporting him if he would concede he doesn't agree personally, but that people shouldn't be forced by the government to live acc…

For what it's worth, Paul was one of only 8 Republicans who voted against rescinding funds from Planned Parenthood.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#190

Post by drdeca »

api wrote: post #110
randomname2 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 14 votes against, FWIW: Baldwin (D-WI) Booker (D-NJ) Brown (D-OH) Coons (D-DE) Franken (D-MN) Leahy (D-VT) Markey (D-MA) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Paul (R-KY) Sanders (I-VT) Udall (D-NM) Warren (D-MA) Wyden (D-OR) https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151022/10133932597/cisa-...

Sanders/Paul 2016! Not a joke. I would vote for it.

What about, and this would be entirely unconstitutional, but what if they were BOTH the president?

Like, not one the president and the other one the vice president. If they were just, dual presidents. Both the singular president. ( if either died, it would be counted as the president dieing, and the vp would take the place)

Post reply on HN