You said, and what you replied to quoted, that the government should take the medallions back and pay them the $0 that the medallions initially cost in compensation. The apparent principle is that the government can undo a transaction (with it) for the purcahse price.
Since most land west of the Mississippi was given away for free, your idea seems to imply that the government (using said principle) could repossess it.
That's not true at all. The law isn't "no monopolies" or "no cartels". It's about fermenting competition. And two companies can compete with each other while still locking out third parties from competing with them.
In preamble, you don't know what my response will be. This is because you lost the point.
I specifically mentioned insurance when the taxi is on the way to pick up the fare. At this point, there is no cost to the customer if a collision occurs.But there is a huge cost to society. Because driving to pick up a fare is a commercial activity, and most Uber drivers do not have commercial insurance. Therefore, they are, at that time, an uninsured driver. And society, will pick up that cost. Either through some government program, or through the "uninsured motorist" portion of whomever the Uber driver collides with.raising the costs (and therefore rates) of all car insurance.
As a rule, when your business model involves forcing other people to pay more money ten they where before for no additional benefit (ala a protection racket) we agree it's probably a bad thing.
In the law, the difference is whether it's a job or not. This is spelled out to a large degree by the IRS. Because of the tax deductability of business expenses, they had to solve that fuzzy line.
It has to do with whether you are trying to make a profit.
Making money for 3 out of 5 years is considered proof. But they consider ow much money is being made, esp. as a percentage of income, the percentage of time you put in, etc. It's complex.
So, an office worker making maybe 50k a year getting $10 on the side every month after investing like 40 hours of driving would probably not count.
In practice, they reduced the number of cars of the road. Uber increases that number.
By what mechanism is that value conveyed to the purchaser? Especially consider when some of this value is to society (insurance while driving to pick up a fare) rather than to the purchaser.
I don't think it's tyrannical of the government to force the walled gardens open. Trust breaking, whether a monopoly or a duopoly, is a government interest.
Remember when the government broke up Standard Oil, how that led to tyranny? Or when they told MS they couldn't force their desktop monopoly onto the internet (well, the browser)? Oh the tyranny.
TL;DR. The solution to the catch-22 is to have the government fix the problem and leave the ideological hand-wringing at home.
You're still in "No true scotsman" level arguing. I'm claiming that your entire point is based on extrapolation. I believe at least half of the examples that you use are incorrectly categorized. Therefore your point is unsupported.
That's before we get into the fact that socialism and/or communism are in no way related (neither directly nor inversely) with the free market. But all you did was assert that the free market is better. The US abandoned a pure free market before Lenin took over Russia and NYC implementated a medallion system before Mao took over China.
North Korea historically disrupted a lot of markets, but that wasn't good. Greece didn't really try to stop market disruptions... they had a bubble burst.
Meanwhile, I don't expect China to welcome market innovation at all... they use tried and true methods at a huge scale.
Hell, Cuba has a lung cancer vaccine!
Before you complain about Nitpicking... I'm saying that the majority of your examples seem off. You kinda just made a socialism and/or communism vs. capitalism argument in a different cloth. Which has nothing to do with whether regulations exist.
ATI and nVidia try to compete for share. They have high-payed repstrying to convince companies making the games used in the benchmarks to use features that favor their cards over their competitions'. I can see publicizing the drivers leading to the discovery of new holes that screw up a specific card getting pushed.
Security by obscurity is not a replacement for real security, but it helps in this narrow case.
It has nothing to do with trademarks, or anything like that. Google no doubt noticed that the majority of his visitors would then search further for lush cosmetics. They view the URL as akin to a search term that needs to be optimized for the masses.
I'm not going to say it's right or should be done. But it is most certainly not arbitrary. And it is almost certainly legal, because the laws haven't kept up with things like accounts as property rights, etc.
You are thinking like a manager...I don't care about my work when I'll die, or even when I quit my company.
I'm both a programmer and a manager, so I can probably weigh in. I do care about what happens to your work when you leave the company. And part of my job is to make sure that your code is usable.
why should I write code for somebody who'll replace me ?
Because code is an asset that you are being paid to create. And if your code is not maintainable, it's not much of an asset; it's worth far less to me. So, if I notice our code is a fuck storm of uncommented overly complex verbiage, I'm not letting you work on anything important. So, maybe you get to work on small one-offs (really career enhancing), maybe I just fire you. But certainly I don't expect to allow you to keep extending your tentacles..
The reason you say "most of your code will be rewritten" is because it sounds like your code is poor. Why would I pay asset-level prices for stuff with a shelf-life of a year?
It's not an additional mandate. It's allowing people to spend their landline subsidy on broadband instead.
This is how the government works. Congress makes up a rule like "supply telephone subsidy to poor people". Some bureaucrat figures out how to verify that they are actually poor, how to deliver the subsidy, and whether it has to be a voice line or can be a data line.
He's saying a woman is looking for a female instructor. Which makes sense, there's a lot of physical contact that may make some women uncomfortable is cross-gender.
He's also implying that if you search for "women wrestling women" or any similar set of words in Google... good luck avoiding all the (softcore, with SafeSearch) porn.
How do you judge quality? Anecdotal evidence? Government studies? Guessing? How do you account for bandwidth, reliability and coverage in the specific nooks you happen to go in? How do you account for/plan for coverage while traveling?
Price, obviously, is easy to discriminate on... except how do you determine your current, and predict your future, needs on three axes (text, voice and data)? And do you determine your needs and figure out what the cheapest is, or a more complex MxN matrix?
Are customers all on month-to-month where you are? They seem to be mostly accepting 2-year deals where I am.
Most importantly, there are tons of ways to incentivize switching without offering deals to all. Free phones if you bring in a phone offered by a rival, etc. Therefore, companies can compete over hopefully cheap differentiators and not on price or expensive infrastructure.
Dude, on the first point, we're clearly having a tone miscommunication. Sarcasm not going well over the internet.
On the second, it's not a binary thing. It's a continuum. I explained that in this case, supply/demand signals are corrupted, because supply signals are unreliable. Hence, blind faith in that signal is not likely to result in the optimal outcome.
As for your specific area, I'm sorry. But, having no idea where you live, I have no idea why that is.
Slashdot Mirror
How can homomorphic encryption ever work on integer math? It's easy to acquire "1" (X/X) and therefore "N" (1 + 1 + 1 ... etc).
You said, and what you replied to quoted, that the government should take the medallions back and pay them the $0 that the medallions initially cost in compensation. The apparent principle is that the government can undo a transaction (with it) for the purcahse price.
Since most land west of the Mississippi was given away for free, your idea seems to imply that the government (using said principle) could repossess it.
What makes you think I carry it with me all day?
Also you left out camera, but I dispute internet traffic monitor.
So the US government should be able to repossess the vast majority of land in the midwest (and a good portion elsewhere?)
That's not true at all. The law isn't "no monopolies" or "no cartels". It's about fermenting competition. And two companies can compete with each other while still locking out third parties from competing with them.
In preamble, you don't know what my response will be. This is because you lost the point.
I specifically mentioned insurance when the taxi is on the way to pick up the fare. At this point, there is no cost to the customer if a collision occurs.But there is a huge cost to society. Because driving to pick up a fare is a commercial activity, and most Uber drivers do not have commercial insurance. Therefore, they are, at that time, an uninsured driver. And society, will pick up that cost. Either through some government program, or through the "uninsured motorist" portion of whomever the Uber driver collides with.raising the costs (and therefore rates) of all car insurance.
As a rule, when your business model involves forcing other people to pay more money ten they where before for no additional benefit (ala a protection racket) we agree it's probably a bad thing.
In the law, the difference is whether it's a job or not. This is spelled out to a large degree by the IRS. Because of the tax deductability of business expenses, they had to solve that fuzzy line.
It has to do with whether you are trying to make a profit.
Making money for 3 out of 5 years is considered proof. But they consider ow much money is being made, esp. as a percentage of income, the percentage of time you put in, etc. It's complex.
So, an office worker making maybe 50k a year getting $10 on the side every month after investing like 40 hours of driving would probably not count.
In practice, they reduced the number of cars of the road. Uber increases that number.
By what mechanism is that value conveyed to the purchaser? Especially consider when some of this value is to society (insurance while driving to pick up a fare) rather than to the purchaser.
Umm... both of them can be subject to anti-trust actions. A duopoly is totally within the scope of the act.
I don't think it's tyrannical of the government to force the walled gardens open. Trust breaking, whether a monopoly or a duopoly, is a government interest.
Remember when the government broke up Standard Oil, how that led to tyranny? Or when they told MS they couldn't force their desktop monopoly onto the internet (well, the browser)? Oh the tyranny.
TL;DR. The solution to the catch-22 is to have the government fix the problem and leave the ideological hand-wringing at home.
Buying holy items within a repressive communist government area? Check
Making the "tiger rock" joke about a country that has at least two variants of tiger? Check
You're still in "No true scotsman" level arguing. I'm claiming that your entire point is based on extrapolation. I believe at least half of the examples that you use are incorrectly categorized. Therefore your point is unsupported.
That's before we get into the fact that socialism and/or communism are in no way related (neither directly nor inversely) with the free market. But all you did was assert that the free market is better. The US abandoned a pure free market before Lenin took over Russia and NYC implementated a medallion system before Mao took over China.
Do they know the difference?
Evidence please?
North Korea historically disrupted a lot of markets, but that wasn't good. Greece didn't really try to stop market disruptions... they had a bubble burst.
Meanwhile, I don't expect China to welcome market innovation at all... they use tried and true methods at a huge scale.
Hell, Cuba has a lung cancer vaccine!
Before you complain about Nitpicking... I'm saying that the majority of your examples seem off. You kinda just made a socialism and/or communism vs. capitalism argument in a different cloth. Which has nothing to do with whether regulations exist.
On Android in general, some variants of Android, or UbuntuOS? Because that's interesting.
I assume a ton of OSS is C++, so it can just be (or has been) recompiled* for ARM7
*I'm rusty on recompiling on a different chipset; vis-a-vis recompiling C or C++ code.
ATI and nVidia try to compete for share. They have high-payed repstrying to convince companies making the games used in the benchmarks to use features that favor their cards over their competitions'. I can see publicizing the drivers leading to the discovery of new holes that screw up a specific card getting pushed.
Security by obscurity is not a replacement for real security, but it helps in this narrow case.
Wait, it cannot run all the various OSS that the desktop version runs? What's the fucking point?
I thought it was all about trying to get more command line level control into a phone, to make it easier to do serious things.
You can get porn over HTML5.
But Hulu and Netfllix both still require 3rd party plugins (Flash, Silverlight)... if I recall correctly.
It has nothing to do with trademarks, or anything like that. Google no doubt noticed that the majority of his visitors would then search further for lush cosmetics. They view the URL as akin to a search term that needs to be optimized for the masses.
I'm not going to say it's right or should be done. But it is most certainly not arbitrary. And it is almost certainly legal, because the laws haven't kept up with things like accounts as property rights, etc.
I'm both a programmer and a manager, so I can probably weigh in. I do care about what happens to your work when you leave the company. And part of my job is to make sure that your code is usable.
Because code is an asset that you are being paid to create. And if your code is not maintainable, it's not much of an asset; it's worth far less to me. So, if I notice our code is a fuck storm of uncommented overly complex verbiage, I'm not letting you work on anything important. So, maybe you get to work on small one-offs (really career enhancing), maybe I just fire you. But certainly I don't expect to allow you to keep extending your tentacles..
The reason you say "most of your code will be rewritten" is because it sounds like your code is poor. Why would I pay asset-level prices for stuff with a shelf-life of a year?
It's not an additional mandate. It's allowing people to spend their landline subsidy on broadband instead.
This is how the government works. Congress makes up a rule like "supply telephone subsidy to poor people". Some bureaucrat figures out how to verify that they are actually poor, how to deliver the subsidy, and whether it has to be a voice line or can be a data line.
He's saying a woman is looking for a female instructor. Which makes sense, there's a lot of physical contact that may make some women uncomfortable is cross-gender.
He's also implying that if you search for "women wrestling women" or any similar set of words in Google... good luck avoiding all the (softcore, with SafeSearch) porn.
How do you judge quality? Anecdotal evidence? Government studies? Guessing? How do you account for bandwidth, reliability and coverage in the specific nooks you happen to go in? How do you account for/plan for coverage while traveling?
Price, obviously, is easy to discriminate on... except how do you determine your current, and predict your future, needs on three axes (text, voice and data)? And do you determine your needs and figure out what the cheapest is, or a more complex MxN matrix?
Are customers all on month-to-month where you are? They seem to be mostly accepting 2-year deals where I am.
Most importantly, there are tons of ways to incentivize switching without offering deals to all. Free phones if you bring in a phone offered by a rival, etc. Therefore, companies can compete over hopefully cheap differentiators and not on price or expensive infrastructure.
So you think that telco uses cost-plus pricing and customers use best service/rate calculations?
Dude, on the first point, we're clearly having a tone miscommunication. Sarcasm not going well over the internet.
On the second, it's not a binary thing. It's a continuum. I explained that in this case, supply/demand signals are corrupted, because supply signals are unreliable. Hence, blind faith in that signal is not likely to result in the optimal outcome.
As for your specific area, I'm sorry. But, having no idea where you live, I have no idea why that is.