Remember, the "market will take care of itself" was also promulgated by CATO in respect to Wall Street, and we know how well that worked out.
Really? When was Wall Street given the opportunity to "take care of itself"? The government has intervened to significantly contribute to creating problems on Wall Street and then used those problems as an excuse to intervene even further.
My suspicion is that they are going to review two things. One, whether or not Google can claim a deduction for the money given to Mozilla. Two, whether or not Mozilla should be filing a tax return (and possibly paying taxes if they would show a profit under tax law). On that second one, depending on what they find, that money from Google might qualify as income.
Nat Geo (or maybe the History channel)just did a special about mammal fossils that were found with the bones of (very young)dinosaurs fossilized in their stomachs. I wasn't really paying attention at the time, so I can't say much more about it, just that section caught my attention
Re:What does Nerd mean now?
on
American Nerd
·
· Score: 1
Not any more. The Republicans lost the election.
No, now more so than ever. The Democrats who have been running the schools for years are now running the country.
PPS is $10 a year for 10 years more or less than $33 one-off? Yang was looking for the 10-year payoff, not the August one.
Except that it isn't $10 a year for any length of time, the $10 share price is a once and done deal (once you sell your share for $10, you don't have it anymore). It was $33 one off when MS made their offer, and now it is $10 one off on the open market.
So, because this ruling complies with a poorly written law, it makes sense?
PickupPal is not a public carrier, they do not transport anyone. They do not offer "franchises" for someone to transport people. PickupPal merely connects someone who is offering a ride to someone who is looking for a ride.
The government should crack down on those who are using PickupPal to operate unlicensed taxi/bus services, not on PickupPal. And yes a taxi company could use a similar approach to circumvent the licensing laws, however, when you cracked down on their drivers and discovered that they were "franchisees", you could use their testimony to go after the company.
In the US, voters get to choose who they vote for. However, most voters choose not to by foregoing the party primaries, allowing others to select the short list. The primaries are where the important decisions are often made.
As another poster comments, the U.S. system was intentionally designed to limit the frequency at which you could replace your representatives.
I must say that even as an occasionally liberal Democrat that this concept has always annoyed the hell out of me. Can I get a check from Uncle Sam just for working? And why do certain people get away without paying any income taxes anyway? Income taxes fund things that directly benefit all of us -- I wouldn't care if the lowest tax rate was a measly 1% -- as long as everybody was being asked to contribute something.
So, I take it you are in favor of eliminating all tax deductions?
Not always true. I've had numbers I never gave charged by companies that had past business relations with me. They simply called up MasterCard (or whatever they did), asked for the new number, and got to charge me without my permission. I know this because my card was hacked and replaced with a new number, which I never gave them.
If that happened, you need to cancel that credit card and inform MasterCard. That is a clear violation of the law and MasterCard's merchant agreements.
You do know that Bill Clinton signed the Kyoto Treaty, but never submitted it to the Senate for ratification? And that the Senate voted on a resolution that the U.S. should not sign the Kyoto protocol? And that said resolution passed 95-0. All George Bush did was say that he was not going to present a flawed treaty that his predecessor had negotiated to the Senate for ratification and was withdrawing the U.S. signature.
Yes, but during the most recent Flu Pandemic (1968-1969), deaths from the flu were below average in the U.S..
For all intents and purposes the 1918 Flu Pandemic occurred before the advent of modern medicine. Penicillin wasn't discovered until 1928. The developments that followed the discovery of penicillin drastically reduced the fatality of the flu.
So let me make sure I understand... this is basically the EU equivalent of a United States Senator [Marco Cappato, a Liberal member of the European Parliament] asking the House of Representatives [the European Council] for a contract the House negotiated on behalf of the government and getting denied?
Actually, I think this is the EU equivalent of a member of the U.S. House of Representatives asking the U.S. Administration (the European Council) for information on how it is spending money.
No, when he gave his two weeks notice, they informed him of his Non Compete clause and offered him a year's salary and benefits (and I believe some kind of "bonus") until the end of the Non Compete, while he took a year off.
If you follow the story it is a little more complicated than that. This case is exactly what Non Compete clauses are about. The guy worked for IBM, in charge of manufacturing a chip that was bought by Apple for one of its products (the Iphone, I think). Apple buys a chip fabricator that is capable of building chips like the one they buy from IBM, and clearly expresses interest in manufacturing this chip themselves. A short time goes by and they hire the guy from IBM who was in charge of manufacturing the chip they bought from IBM to run their new chip fabrication division.
This wasn't a case of the guy leaving IBM and going to work for just any other chip manufacturer. This was a guy leaving IBM and going to work for the company that bought a specific product from IBM (that this guy had helped design while working for IBM) with the expressed intention of said company to design their own chip to do the same thing.
Overall, I think that Non Competes are bad, in this particular case, IBM clearly has a legitimate interest in preventing an employee taking knowledge about a specific device that he acquired while working for them and applying that knowledge so that another company can profit from the effort that IBM put into developing this product. IBM offered to pay the person in question a premium on his salary for one year after he left IBM, if he stayed out of the workforce for that time.
If there's more positive going on with Obama, there will be more positive stories. That's not bias, that's just basic common sense.
Right, because if the press doesn't report anything McCain says that would cause you to look at him in a positive way and the press doesn't report it, you would know about it anyway. And if Obama says something that would cause you to look at it in a negative way and the press doesn't report it you would know about it anyway.
I wasn't going to address any of the rest you said, but I can't stop myself. McCain's plan for "taxing healthcare" (actually health insurance job benefits, not health care) was based on studies. Studies showed that the standard health insurance benefit cost an employer about $4300 a year(I don't have the number in front of me but my memory says that it was somewhere in that vicinity). Some people get much better health insurance coverage that costs their employer $10,000, $20,000 a year. McCain figured that those people should pay income tax on that extra benefit they are getting, so he suggested taxing health insurance job benefits as part of income tax, and then giving an additional $5,000 deduction to cover the amount of health insurance most people get (with a small margin for error figured in to make sure that including health insurance as part of income wouldn't have any impact on an average person).
There are good reasons why someone would vote for Obama over McCain, but if you based your vote (even partially) on Obama's ads about McCain "taxing health insurance", you are an idiot.
Except there is now an explicit Amendment to the Constitution outlawing slavery. See that is the correct way to change the law. If you want to allow the government to do things that the Constitution doesn't authorize, there is a system in place to change the Constitution.
More often than not, government regulation actually encourages more competition.
Government regulation of a particular business always increases the barriers to entry in that business. This is not always a bad thing, but it always reduces competition.
Are you implying that there is context under which Bill Ayers saying that he didn't plant enough bombs is not very incendiary? It may be that there is context in which what he said does not imply that he wishes that the Weather Underground had killed more people, but if so, why didn't any of Obama's supporters bring it up during the campaign?
Actually, "irregardless" is a word. It is a bad word in that it breaks the basic rules for breaking a word down into its parts to figure out its meaning.
I, also, think that it is probably a good idea to work at making it a word that is a sign of being poorly educated. Once that is accomplished it is only a matter of time until it ceases to be a current word any more.
Actually, if you read the original poster closely, you will see that he was agreeing with the study. So, the poster you were replying to was seen as insightful because he gave an anecdote from his own life that supported the findings of the study (and possibly gave an interesting suggestion as to the direction of further studies).
On the other hand, I have problems with studies of this sort going back to a study I saw a number of years ago that claimed to show that spanking children made behavior problems worse. The "scientist" who conducted the study said that he had been studying the effects of spanking for 20 years and finally had developed a study that showed that spanking was bad. In the study they examined the behavior of children 3 to 6 years old. One group was spanked at least once a day, the other was never spanked. After two years the behavior of the children who were spanked at least once a day had gotten worse, the behavior of the children who were not spanked got better.
I have two problems with this study. First, the author of the study had conducted multiple studies which showed no negative affects of spanking, but never questioned his assumption that spanking was bad. Second, if parents need(?) to spank their child once a day, they are doing something wrong that has nothing to do with spanking.
This makes me suspicious of this study, since there have been repeated studies that have attempted to show that violent video games are bad for kids with little conclusive evidence.
So it's OK for MS to remove the "us" at the end of Azureus to make Azure and everybody should be OK with that, but if somebody tries to replace the W in windows with an L to make Lindows, everyone should be up in arms about that?
In both cases, it seems like it has much more to do with WHO owns the trademark than with any sharply objective dividing line of legal fairness.
Microsoft did not "remove the 'us' from Azureus". Azure is a word already.
More importantly MS is not selling a product called "Azure", they have given a product they are developing the code name "Azure". When they actually release the product if they call it Azure, then it might be time to discuss this.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember, the "market will take care of itself" was also promulgated by CATO in respect to Wall Street, and we know how well that worked out.
Really? When was Wall Street given the opportunity to "take care of itself"? The government has intervened to significantly contribute to creating problems on Wall Street and then used those problems as an excuse to intervene even further.
My suspicion is that they are going to review two things. One, whether or not Google can claim a deduction for the money given to Mozilla. Two, whether or not Mozilla should be filing a tax return (and possibly paying taxes if they would show a profit under tax law). On that second one, depending on what they find, that money from Google might qualify as income.
Nat Geo (or maybe the History channel)just did a special about mammal fossils that were found with the bones of (very young)dinosaurs fossilized in their stomachs. I wasn't really paying attention at the time, so I can't say much more about it, just that section caught my attention
Not any more. The Republicans lost the election.
No, now more so than ever. The Democrats who have been running the schools for years are now running the country.
S
PPS is $10 a year for 10 years more or less than $33 one-off? Yang was looking for the 10-year payoff, not the August one.
Except that it isn't $10 a year for any length of time, the $10 share price is a once and done deal (once you sell your share for $10, you don't have it anymore). It was $33 one off when MS made their offer, and now it is $10 one off on the open market.
You can't hear a Prius from all the way down the road, silly.
He said stupid, not ugly.
Please give an example of a country that tried communism and had anything remotely resembling freedom.
So, because this ruling complies with a poorly written law, it makes sense?
PickupPal is not a public carrier, they do not transport anyone. They do not offer "franchises" for someone to transport people. PickupPal merely connects someone who is offering a ride to someone who is looking for a ride.
The government should crack down on those who are using PickupPal to operate unlicensed taxi/bus services, not on PickupPal. And yes a taxi company could use a similar approach to circumvent the licensing laws, however, when you cracked down on their drivers and discovered that they were "franchisees", you could use their testimony to go after the company.
In the US, voters get to choose who they vote for. However, most voters choose not to by foregoing the party primaries, allowing others to select the short list. The primaries are where the important decisions are often made.
As another poster comments, the U.S. system was intentionally designed to limit the frequency at which you could replace your representatives.
I must say that even as an occasionally liberal Democrat that this concept has always annoyed the hell out of me. Can I get a check from Uncle Sam just for working? And why do certain people get away without paying any income taxes anyway? Income taxes fund things that directly benefit all of us -- I wouldn't care if the lowest tax rate was a measly 1% -- as long as everybody was being asked to contribute something.
So, I take it you are in favor of eliminating all tax deductions?
Not always true. I've had numbers I never gave charged by companies that had past business relations with me. They simply called up MasterCard (or whatever they did), asked for the new number, and got to charge me without my permission. I know this because my card was hacked and replaced with a new number, which I never gave them.
If that happened, you need to cancel that credit card and inform MasterCard. That is a clear violation of the law and MasterCard's merchant agreements.
You do know that Bill Clinton signed the Kyoto Treaty, but never submitted it to the Senate for ratification? And that the Senate voted on a resolution that the U.S. should not sign the Kyoto protocol? And that said resolution passed 95-0. All George Bush did was say that he was not going to present a flawed treaty that his predecessor had negotiated to the Senate for ratification and was withdrawing the U.S. signature.
Yes, but during the most recent Flu Pandemic (1968-1969), deaths from the flu were below average in the U.S..
For all intents and purposes the 1918 Flu Pandemic occurred before the advent of modern medicine. Penicillin wasn't discovered until 1928. The developments that followed the discovery of penicillin drastically reduced the fatality of the flu.
So let me make sure I understand ... this is basically the EU equivalent of a United States Senator [Marco Cappato, a Liberal member of the European Parliament] asking the House of Representatives [the European Council] for a contract the House negotiated on behalf of the government and getting denied?
Actually, I think this is the EU equivalent of a member of the U.S. House of Representatives asking the U.S. Administration (the European Council) for information on how it is spending money.
No, when he gave his two weeks notice, they informed him of his Non Compete clause and offered him a year's salary and benefits (and I believe some kind of "bonus") until the end of the Non Compete, while he took a year off.
If you follow the story it is a little more complicated than that. This case is exactly what Non Compete clauses are about. The guy worked for IBM, in charge of manufacturing a chip that was bought by Apple for one of its products (the Iphone, I think). Apple buys a chip fabricator that is capable of building chips like the one they buy from IBM, and clearly expresses interest in manufacturing this chip themselves. A short time goes by and they hire the guy from IBM who was in charge of manufacturing the chip they bought from IBM to run their new chip fabrication division.
This wasn't a case of the guy leaving IBM and going to work for just any other chip manufacturer. This was a guy leaving IBM and going to work for the company that bought a specific product from IBM (that this guy had helped design while working for IBM) with the expressed intention of said company to design their own chip to do the same thing.
Overall, I think that Non Competes are bad, in this particular case, IBM clearly has a legitimate interest in preventing an employee taking knowledge about a specific device that he acquired while working for them and applying that knowledge so that another company can profit from the effort that IBM put into developing this product. IBM offered to pay the person in question a premium on his salary for one year after he left IBM, if he stayed out of the workforce for that time.
... or "Spend your money like you want but we'll lynch ya if you don't share our values" freedom (Republicans).
You do know that lynching is traditionally a Democrat sport, don't you?
If there's more positive going on with Obama, there will be more positive stories. That's not bias, that's just basic common sense.
Right, because if the press doesn't report anything McCain says that would cause you to look at him in a positive way and the press doesn't report it, you would know about it anyway. And if Obama says something that would cause you to look at it in a negative way and the press doesn't report it you would know about it anyway.
I wasn't going to address any of the rest you said, but I can't stop myself. McCain's plan for "taxing healthcare" (actually health insurance job benefits, not health care) was based on studies. Studies showed that the standard health insurance benefit cost an employer about $4300 a year(I don't have the number in front of me but my memory says that it was somewhere in that vicinity). Some people get much better health insurance coverage that costs their employer $10,000, $20,000 a year. McCain figured that those people should pay income tax on that extra benefit they are getting, so he suggested taxing health insurance job benefits as part of income tax, and then giving an additional $5,000 deduction to cover the amount of health insurance most people get (with a small margin for error figured in to make sure that including health insurance as part of income wouldn't have any impact on an average person).
There are good reasons why someone would vote for Obama over McCain, but if you based your vote (even partially) on Obama's ads about McCain "taxing health insurance", you are an idiot.
Except there is now an explicit Amendment to the Constitution outlawing slavery. See that is the correct way to change the law. If you want to allow the government to do things that the Constitution doesn't authorize, there is a system in place to change the Constitution.
More often than not, government regulation actually encourages more competition.
Government regulation of a particular business always increases the barriers to entry in that business. This is not always a bad thing, but it always reduces competition.
Historically most monopolies came about through government intervention in the market.
Are you implying that there is context under which Bill Ayers saying that he didn't plant enough bombs is not very incendiary? It may be that there is context in which what he said does not imply that he wishes that the Weather Underground had killed more people, but if so, why didn't any of Obama's supporters bring it up during the campaign?
Actually, "irregardless" is a word. It is a bad word in that it breaks the basic rules for breaking a word down into its parts to figure out its meaning.
I, also, think that it is probably a good idea to work at making it a word that is a sign of being poorly educated. Once that is accomplished it is only a matter of time until it ceases to be a current word any more.
Actually, if you read the original poster closely, you will see that he was agreeing with the study. So, the poster you were replying to was seen as insightful because he gave an anecdote from his own life that supported the findings of the study (and possibly gave an interesting suggestion as to the direction of further studies).
On the other hand, I have problems with studies of this sort going back to a study I saw a number of years ago that claimed to show that spanking children made behavior problems worse. The "scientist" who conducted the study said that he had been studying the effects of spanking for 20 years and finally had developed a study that showed that spanking was bad. In the study they examined the behavior of children 3 to 6 years old. One group was spanked at least once a day, the other was never spanked. After two years the behavior of the children who were spanked at least once a day had gotten worse, the behavior of the children who were not spanked got better.
I have two problems with this study. First, the author of the study had conducted multiple studies which showed no negative affects of spanking, but never questioned his assumption that spanking was bad. Second, if parents need(?) to spank their child once a day, they are doing something wrong that has nothing to do with spanking.
This makes me suspicious of this study, since there have been repeated studies that have attempted to show that violent video games are bad for kids with little conclusive evidence.
So it's OK for MS to remove the "us" at the end of Azureus to make Azure and everybody should be OK with that, but if somebody tries to replace the W in windows with an L to make Lindows, everyone should be up in arms about that?
In both cases, it seems like it has much more to do with WHO owns the trademark than with any sharply objective dividing line of legal fairness.
Microsoft did not "remove the 'us' from Azureus". Azure is a word already.
More importantly MS is not selling a product called "Azure", they have given a product they are developing the code name "Azure". When they actually release the product if they call it Azure, then it might be time to discuss this.