The upper limit is the caps, not the juice. It's hard to get big enough caps to really affect UAVs. Especially since military UAVs are resilient to EMPs
I'm sorry that your daughter and family lived through that ordeal. I hope your daughter is recover(ing/ed) and is got/is getting the help she needs.
Unfortunately, I think you read the situation wrong. Your problem is actually exacerbated by jailing non-violent drug offenders, three ways.
First, most obviously, and least interestingly, it's possible that treatment applied earlier as opposed to punishment would have caused him to be able to control his addiction.
Secondly, the fact that there are non-heinous drug crime offenses means that he was likely able to hide among that group. Consider if it were littering instead. It's tempting to say that if they had executed him for littering, your daughter would have been saved. But the sheer number of people who litter mean that there's likely to be a pushback against execution just for littering. On the other hand, there were other crimes he committed. Which brings us to:
Third, there are limited amounts of bed space in jails; in California they have had to release prisoners early because there was not enough space. The mandatory minimums for non-violent offenders mean that those resources cannot be used on those earlier violent felonies (which are far more predictive of future violent felonies than drug crimes).
Heck, the only selling point of AB109 probation was that state prisons were so overcrowded that the US Supreme Court (hardly a pro-criminal group in 2011) ordered California to reduce the prison roles by 30,000.
Just imagine a world where murderers got 20+ years and people who just possessed some drugs got <8 instead of vice-versa.
Not entirely sure I'd call dropping tens of thousands of bombs per year...
You don't get a line item veto as a single taxpayer. You pay for part of someone else's bomb, they'll pay for part of your NEA or whatever.
I mean, I wish that the government only did things that I wanted. Also, that I was at the head of the government, my word were law, and I could stop people from being assholes.
What's the argument that corporate taxes raise the prices of goods? By definition, they exclude costs (including costs of money) and just cover profits. Was there a company that was saying "Gee, I could make an extra $2M, but no, I'm making enough"? And then they saw their tax bill and said "No, that extra $2M is what I need to make sure my shareholders can lead the life they expect; time to raise prices"?
"I'm a doctor and I have patients I need to tend to" is a pretty fucking good excuse.
It seems like less of a good excuse than "This will screw up my whole vacation" or "I need to finalize a deal with a client" or, "I'm on my way to a wedding" or, a lot of others. If he was a surgeon in a specialty that couldn't be covered, fine. But he was probably a general practitioner. And his ego probably is over-inflated.
; you make it easy for people to cheat on each other and helped create a "hookup" generation
That's bullshit for a lot of reasons, starting with "duh all communication can be used for cheating" and going to "millennials actually hook up less frequently than their parents' did."
This jumping is because of how Google uses "first render" timing to affect pagerank. They forced developers to use stupid workarounds, and now they are solving the problem caused by the stupid workaround.
It's hard to imagine self driving, big screen or software updates as bonuses. I read that as false security leading to crashes, built in unupgradable tablet, and risk that bad/malicious/government required updates will brick your car.
Very true. If you're going for a "build and sell" strategy, you need a runway, and need to know how you are going to survive for as long as you need. Then you need more money because you're certainly optimistic.
While agree with most of your post, the "when do we generate revenue" line is probably the most optional. There are a lot of start ups that grow customer base at a loss, expecting to eventually sell to someone that can keep absorbing teh losses until they monetize. E.g. Google. And I use as an example senses - they will buy startups and then figure out how to monetize them, and they originally started without any revenue model and had to hope into one.
Of course, that is very much a "1M+ users or you have nothing" attempt, and it's either go big or go home.
DHS (as Ron Paul said, "we fought World War II without a DHS")
During WWII, the US government (a) interred Japanese-Americans (b) rationed all manner of goods (c) had official propaganda departments aimed at US citizens and an official Office of Censorship (d) Diverted 40%+ of the economy to the military, etc. etc. etc. Whether an agency called the DHS existed, certainly far more reaching government intervention occurred. (Plus the military did homeland security; you know, at war and all).
The EU has no such regulation (this is what we were discussing). I'm pretty sure that since Italy already passed a law making it illegal to Uber, a law saying that accessing the site is illegal and blocked at the ISP level would be constitutional. The UK does it a lot. And, for instance Italy has done it before.
As for proxies, I addressed that in my earlier post.
An ISP could not block it absent a government order. But the EU's net neutrality law doesn't stop Italy from passing a law banning Uber's site or IP range, nor their ISPs from enforcing said law.
Binary guy is pretty incorrect, on both dimensions.
Sure there was a terrorist attack in Sweden, but the problem is with the term "another". Yes, there have been past terrorist attacks, but the implication was clearly referencing to the non-existant terrorist attacks Trump spoke of earlier this year as what is "another" to.
And what anti-Trump spin? The numbers were half the prediction. That's pretty dramatic. And the name "Trump" and title "President" appear nowhere.
is far less significant than another terrorist attack in fragile Europe
Well, I would actually disagree on importance from a national level; two people dying is a tragedy, but hardly likely to change anything on a national level. Beyond that, the attack was featured on the front page of the NYTimes and the Washington Post, so...
Could you cite a few examples of where the government proved to be more efficient at producing a product or delivering a service, than a privately-run firm?
The USPS. Providing libraries. Electricity (either government run or price set). Some would probably say healthcare in general (ex. Medicaid vs. private insurance).
The simple fact is, had they not existed, the drugs would not have existed â" unavailable at any price.
Most drug companies purchase completed drugs (often funded by the government), not develop them inhouse.
The only hope for the rest is that the second method [Charge the highest price at which there are still willing buyers] â" charging whatever the market will bear â" will be chosen, because then the profits (however "obscene") may be used to produce more of the stuff..
That's quite simply wrong across multiple dimensions. First, the highest price where there are still willing buyers is no where near proper profit maximization. Secondly, marginal costs on drugs are almost nothing, they're almost all fixed costs. There's no reason that there are a limited amount of pills any more than there are a limited number of CDs. Third, that "may" is troubling. Sure, it may be used for that, or simply pocketed. Since money is fungible, there's no real cause to suggest that it will directly fund the next round
, when it decided to sell Samsung's new Galaxy S8 and Galaxy S8+ through its stores it basically sealed its own platform's fate
Yes, because when Microsoft decides to support your platform, that's a great assurance of (a) your platform's longevity and (b) how they will never compete against it. They couldn't start adding features to the Galaxys sold through their store that start winning the battle against Google for control of Android!
Also, unlike Google, MS has really good support for failed products. It's one reason I'm far more likely to build something on an MS platform than a Google web-service. (Okay, I'm on AWS, but the point holds.)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that certainly worked. Sunde and GP stopped buying last year and now the world is all better!
Tortious interference? Computer Fraud and Abuse? Breach of Contract?
The upper limit is the caps, not the juice. It's hard to get big enough caps to really affect UAVs. Especially since military UAVs are resilient to EMPs
I'm sorry that your daughter and family lived through that ordeal. I hope your daughter is recover(ing/ed) and is got/is getting the help she needs.
Unfortunately, I think you read the situation wrong. Your problem is actually exacerbated by jailing non-violent drug offenders, three ways.
First, most obviously, and least interestingly, it's possible that treatment applied earlier as opposed to punishment would have caused him to be able to control his addiction.
Secondly, the fact that there are non-heinous drug crime offenses means that he was likely able to hide among that group. Consider if it were littering instead. It's tempting to say that if they had executed him for littering, your daughter would have been saved. But the sheer number of people who litter mean that there's likely to be a pushback against execution just for littering. On the other hand, there were other crimes he committed. Which brings us to:
Third, there are limited amounts of bed space in jails; in California they have had to release prisoners early because there was not enough space. The mandatory minimums for non-violent offenders mean that those resources cannot be used on those earlier violent felonies (which are far more predictive of future violent felonies than drug crimes).
Heck, the only selling point of AB109 probation was that state prisons were so overcrowded that the US Supreme Court (hardly a pro-criminal group in 2011) ordered California to reduce the prison roles by 30,000.
Just imagine a world where murderers got 20+ years and people who just possessed some drugs got <8 instead of vice-versa.
You don't get a line item veto as a single taxpayer. You pay for part of someone else's bomb, they'll pay for part of your NEA or whatever.
I mean, I wish that the government only did things that I wanted. Also, that I was at the head of the government, my word were law, and I could stop people from being assholes.
I'm not sure income variance is ever good, uncertainty leading to bad decisions.
Which can be perfectly rational. There are perfectly rational reasons for a lot of behaviors that look stupid from the outside.
So do I!
Oh, wait, you're thinking like 80% of the government is this. That does not sound reasonable.
I dispute that. In fact, I'm not sure what government benefits don't scale with income, unless you're talking about those few means tested programs.s
What's the argument that corporate taxes raise the prices of goods? By definition, they exclude costs (including costs of money) and just cover profits. Was there a company that was saying "Gee, I could make an extra $2M, but no, I'm making enough"? And then they saw their tax bill and said "No, that extra $2M is what I need to make sure my shareholders can lead the life they expect; time to raise prices"?
If they want the page to load quickly, they could stop trying to get everyone to install trackers on their site.
It seems like less of a good excuse than "This will screw up my whole vacation" or "I need to finalize a deal with a client" or, "I'm on my way to a wedding" or, a lot of others. If he was a surgeon in a specialty that couldn't be covered, fine. But he was probably a general practitioner. And his ego probably is over-inflated.
That's bullshit for a lot of reasons, starting with "duh all communication can be used for cheating" and going to "millennials actually hook up less frequently than their parents' did."
This jumping is because of how Google uses "first render" timing to affect pagerank. They forced developers to use stupid workarounds, and now they are solving the problem caused by the stupid workaround.
It's hard to imagine self driving, big screen or software updates as bonuses. I read that as false security leading to crashes, built in unupgradable tablet, and risk that bad/malicious/government required updates will brick your car.
Very true. If you're going for a "build and sell" strategy, you need a runway, and need to know how you are going to survive for as long as you need. Then you need more money because you're certainly optimistic.
While agree with most of your post, the "when do we generate revenue" line is probably the most optional. There are a lot of start ups that grow customer base at a loss, expecting to eventually sell to someone that can keep absorbing teh losses until they monetize. E.g. Google. And I use as an example senses - they will buy startups and then figure out how to monetize them, and they originally started without any revenue model and had to hope into one.
Of course, that is very much a "1M+ users or you have nothing" attempt, and it's either go big or go home.
During WWII, the US government (a) interred Japanese-Americans (b) rationed all manner of goods (c) had official propaganda departments aimed at US citizens and an official Office of Censorship (d) Diverted 40%+ of the economy to the military, etc. etc. etc. Whether an agency called the DHS existed, certainly far more reaching government intervention occurred. (Plus the military did homeland security; you know, at war and all).
The Russian's don't want to leak their own code.
700 F is well within the "lake of sulfur"-range. I'm not sure we can really claim it's "hotter than hell".
The EU has no such regulation (this is what we were discussing). I'm pretty sure that since Italy already passed a law making it illegal to Uber, a law saying that accessing the site is illegal and blocked at the ISP level would be constitutional. The UK does it a lot. And, for instance Italy has done it before.
As for proxies, I addressed that in my earlier post.
An ISP could not block it absent a government order. But the EU's net neutrality law doesn't stop Italy from passing a law banning Uber's site or IP range, nor their ISPs from enforcing said law.
Italy can totally block URLs or IPs.
I mean, sure, people can evade that with a VPN, but Uber is built on critical mass. Italy can break that, and then find and heavily punish violators.
Binary guy is pretty incorrect, on both dimensions.
Sure there was a terrorist attack in Sweden, but the problem is with the term "another". Yes, there have been past terrorist attacks, but the implication was clearly referencing to the non-existant terrorist attacks Trump spoke of earlier this year as what is "another" to.
And what anti-Trump spin? The numbers were half the prediction. That's pretty dramatic. And the name "Trump" and title "President" appear nowhere.
Well, I would actually disagree on importance from a national level; two people dying is a tragedy, but hardly likely to change anything on a national level. Beyond that, the attack was featured on the front page of the NYTimes and the Washington Post, so...
The USPS. Providing libraries. Electricity (either government run or price set). Some would probably say healthcare in general (ex. Medicaid vs. private insurance).
Most drug companies purchase completed drugs (often funded by the government), not develop them inhouse.
That's quite simply wrong across multiple dimensions. First, the highest price where there are still willing buyers is no where near proper profit maximization. Secondly, marginal costs on drugs are almost nothing, they're almost all fixed costs. There's no reason that there are a limited amount of pills any more than there are a limited number of CDs. Third, that "may" is troubling. Sure, it may be used for that, or simply pocketed. Since money is fungible, there's no real cause to suggest that it will directly fund the next round
Yes, because when Microsoft decides to support your platform, that's a great assurance of (a) your platform's longevity and (b) how they will never compete against it. They couldn't start adding features to the Galaxys sold through their store that start winning the battle against Google for control of Android!
Also, unlike Google, MS has really good support for failed products. It's one reason I'm far more likely to build something on an MS platform than a Google web-service. (Okay, I'm on AWS, but the point holds.)