Also, Kim Jung Un likes fancy things and went to school in Switzerland. He'd probably rather be in charge of a "fun" dictatorship (Iraq in the '80's) where he has all the disposable income he wants . I mean, even the poorest country is still a country, but a rich country is better.
except that the trend in university budgets looks very similar as well. How many special needs universities are there?
At universities, it's probably due to Title IX's expansion of athletics for women. After all, since the dollars spent have to be the same, and football/men's basketball are expensive, that's a lot of cash. Plus, football/basketball coaches now make millions a year in universities. College sports are a big business.
That graph starts in 1970... just before all the special needs rules went into effect. I think a huge percentage of school funding is spent on that... mostly on staff.
I don't see any point to zero-based budgeting schools. You think math is going to go out of vogue?
According to legend, when Bill Gates when told China always pirates software, he said "How do we make sure they are pirating Windows [over some other OS]"
then at some point you have to expect a new Presidential Administration might be elected and revoke those waivers and reverse previous executive actions.
Ah, see, this is where we disagree. While some things can be changed quickly, there are a whole host of executive branch actions (which normally would be called under the name "regulatory" to distinguish them from "executive order) which are not simply reversable by the same process. The agencies have to present new evidence that justifies changing their rulings (at least in many cases.).
I object in general to rule by man (vs. law)
Wait, even if what you said is true, it's still the rule of law. It's unreasonable for Congress to figure out exactly what food safety regulations need to exist. So they tell the FDA to do it, and pass laws when it seem like they get it wrong. Which is why the FDA has to have some new reason to change the rules so eating raw chicken is now okay, as opposed to the President doesn't believe in germs.
None of what you said contradicts, and instead supports me in that:
A) These are regulations by the EPA, not an executive order signed by Obama.
B) Changing regulations cannot be done just because the chief executive wants to. While Congress can pass any new (constitutional) law it wants, they put limits on how new regulations can be formed (which makes a lot of sense given presidents change every 4-8 years, and Congress passes laws slower than that.)
Instead, you argue that the regulation shouldn't have taken place. Maybe, maybe not. But it's completely irrelevant
then at some point you have to expect a new Presidential Administration might be elected and revoke those waivers and reverse previous executive actions.
There mpg standards are a regulation, not an executive order. And there actually are laws that prevent new administrations from simply changing regulations because of different political beliefs. There is a process, etc. There are also rules on acceptable reasons to change a regulation. In fact, some of the Trump Administration earlier regulation changes are being challenged in the courts as not having been done correctly in form or being disallowed.
At least for now, it's illegal to charge people different rates based on their DNA profiles (part of Obamacare.) Of all the uses, I'm least scared about that - it's hard for me to imagine that politically changing (although, of course it will.). Being tracked everywhere in an inescapable fashion... that's terrifying. The medical benefits are the only upside.
People who purchase any good or service purchase at the least expensive price available to them when all else is equal or they don't possess sufficient information to discriminate otherwise, so is it any great leap to assume Amazon would behave otherwise?
Sure, which is why we noticed that things like minimum wages and labor laws have to exist. Otherwise, interchangeable cog work goes to desperate people working in slave-like conditions. And if how people are being worked in Amazon fulfillment houses (as reported, at least) isn't illegal, it should be
What do they expect to happen to price of unskilled labor when the available supply is increased?
The price to remain the same, because the government set a floor on wages. And, since that floor is going to be below market conditions (usually at least), the amount of competition doesn't matter.
Well, they want the company to do twice as much business in a year so the stock will double. That seems obvious. Obviously, people heavily invested in Apple think you should have one iPhone for each ear, and throw them away and buy new ones instead of recharging them.
I mean, that's almost how Hearthstone is already. I actually think it would be smart if they announced they were doing this for some card type (maybe Epics?), and the Legendaries are every N packs (or more frequently). The thing that misses is if you have 17 of a card and it gets nerfed, so you get extra dust.
Yes, the "whale" mentality (99% of the money comes from 1% of the players) is pretty common in F2P. It's evil, because those are the people with problems. I mean, they subsidize my gaming, but it's still evil.
And yes, I do get that they sell more boxes that way. There can be other benefits to both the company and players (for instance, helping the players see more content they may not have thought about getting.) However, those are usually outweighed by the "fuck it, let's milk the whales."
I would have thought that model would have ended a few years ago, but apparently whales are still around.
Why not just let anyone claim a patent on anything
Some things are clear. Workable cold fusion is patentable. Perpetual motion machines aren't even worth reading (the USPTO I think has that as a standing policy.) Using a computer to do math is clearly non-patentable. I think I made very clear that I was talking about the process for close calls.
I'm fine with creating a technical pool to pull the jury from (prequalified people) and paying them a real salary during the case to incentivize them. I don't think it should be a permanent jury, cause that leads to all the bad things a single bureaucrat does.
I'm fine with special purpose courts (ala traffic) to deal with the issue, but it's naive to expect lawyers to have no say in the cases. Some cases are really going to turn on "is this legally a screw" and some cases are really going to turn on "is X similar to Y when considering Z. Engineers argue!"
A presumption of validity is required, cause a patent has to mean something. At least if I understand you correctly. If I say "I have a patent on X" is should be presumed to be valid. If you meant the court's assumption once the legal challenge starts, I agree with getting rid of it. A court should start neutral.
t's believed that community service and buying Chinese-made products can raise your score. Fraud, tax evasion and smoking in non-smoking areas can drop it.
I had actually planned on complaining "what good is a system of control if you're not going to tell people what you want to control" But you turned me around. Of course, you want to have vague rules.
Slashdot Mirror
And by new coders I cannot tell if they mean "new coders" or "people asking for homework answers"
Also, Kim Jung Un likes fancy things and went to school in Switzerland. He'd probably rather be in charge of a "fun" dictatorship (Iraq in the '80's) where he has all the disposable income he wants . I mean, even the poorest country is still a country, but a rich country is better.
At universities, it's probably due to Title IX's expansion of athletics for women. After all, since the dollars spent have to be the same, and football/men's basketball are expensive, that's a lot of cash. Plus, football/basketball coaches now make millions a year in universities. College sports are a big business.
Most of Disney's work was done as a corporation, not an individual.
That graph starts in 1970... just before all the special needs rules went into effect. I think a huge percentage of school funding is spent on that... mostly on staff.
I don't see any point to zero-based budgeting schools. You think math is going to go out of vogue?
How do you know they have enough of cash? What are they spending the money on that you want to not spend money on.
According to legend, when Bill Gates when told China always pirates software, he said "How do we make sure they are pirating Windows [over some other OS]"
Ah, see, this is where we disagree. While some things can be changed quickly, there are a whole host of executive branch actions (which normally would be called under the name "regulatory" to distinguish them from "executive order) which are not simply reversable by the same process. The agencies have to present new evidence that justifies changing their rulings (at least in many cases.).
Wait, even if what you said is true, it's still the rule of law. It's unreasonable for Congress to figure out exactly what food safety regulations need to exist. So they tell the FDA to do it, and pass laws when it seem like they get it wrong. Which is why the FDA has to have some new reason to change the rules so eating raw chicken is now okay, as opposed to the President doesn't believe in germs.
None of what you said contradicts, and instead supports me in that:
A) These are regulations by the EPA, not an executive order signed by Obama.
B) Changing regulations cannot be done just because the chief executive wants to. While Congress can pass any new (constitutional) law it wants, they put limits on how new regulations can be formed (which makes a lot of sense given presidents change every 4-8 years, and Congress passes laws slower than that.)
Instead, you argue that the regulation shouldn't have taken place. Maybe, maybe not. But it's completely irrelevant
There mpg standards are a regulation, not an executive order. And there actually are laws that prevent new administrations from simply changing regulations because of different political beliefs. There is a process, etc. There are also rules on acceptable reasons to change a regulation. In fact, some of the Trump Administration earlier regulation changes are being challenged in the courts as not having been done correctly in form or being disallowed.
Here's a link to the real newsstory as referenced by the blogpost in the summary links to.
Because they paid money for a service that isn't being provided as agreed to in the contract?
At least for now, it's illegal to charge people different rates based on their DNA profiles (part of Obamacare.) Of all the uses, I'm least scared about that - it's hard for me to imagine that politically changing (although, of course it will.). Being tracked everywhere in an inescapable fashion... that's terrifying. The medical benefits are the only upside.
And it doesn't matter if you participate. All that matters is that your blood relative does.
He owns a large chunk of stock.. That does make him unique in that he gets a large vote as to who gets his job.
Sure, which is why we noticed that things like minimum wages and labor laws have to exist. Otherwise, interchangeable cog work goes to desperate people working in slave-like conditions. And if how people are being worked in Amazon fulfillment houses (as reported, at least) isn't illegal, it should be
Meanwhile, Amazon employees in warehouses are scraping together money to buy their kids a model rocket kit for Christmas.
Man, I wish I could afford just one of his toys from the summary.
Well, they want the company to do twice as much business in a year so the stock will double. That seems obvious. Obviously, people heavily invested in Apple think you should have one iPhone for each ear, and throw them away and buy new ones instead of recharging them.
Ah! Thanks for seeking it out. And no worries- ,y timelines from ~20 years ago are also fuzzy.
I wanted build off what you said and try to explain why I was so sure it was in the '90's, but I cannot even recall that!
I mean, that's almost how Hearthstone is already. I actually think it would be smart if they announced they were doing this for some card type (maybe Epics?), and the Legendaries are every N packs (or more frequently). The thing that misses is if you have 17 of a card and it gets nerfed, so you get extra dust.
Yes, the "whale" mentality (99% of the money comes from 1% of the players) is pretty common in F2P. It's evil, because those are the people with problems. I mean, they subsidize my gaming, but it's still evil.
And yes, I do get that they sell more boxes that way. There can be other benefits to both the company and players (for instance, helping the players see more content they may not have thought about getting.) However, those are usually outweighed by the "fuck it, let's milk the whales."
I would have thought that model would have ended a few years ago, but apparently whales are still around.
Some things are clear. Workable cold fusion is patentable. Perpetual motion machines aren't even worth reading (the USPTO I think has that as a standing policy.) Using a computer to do math is clearly non-patentable. I think I made very clear that I was talking about the process for close calls.
I'm fine with creating a technical pool to pull the jury from (prequalified people) and paying them a real salary during the case to incentivize them. I don't think it should be a permanent jury, cause that leads to all the bad things a single bureaucrat does.
I'm fine with special purpose courts (ala traffic) to deal with the issue, but it's naive to expect lawyers to have no say in the cases. Some cases are really going to turn on "is this legally a screw" and some cases are really going to turn on "is X similar to Y when considering Z. Engineers argue!"
A presumption of validity is required, cause a patent has to mean something. At least if I understand you correctly. If I say "I have a patent on X" is should be presumed to be valid. If you meant the court's assumption once the legal challenge starts, I agree with getting rid of it. A court should start neutral.
I don't understand the first ("Star Map") link in the summary. It is only 8 million pixels, it cannot show 1.3 billion independent stars.
A step further? FTFS:
I had actually planned on complaining "what good is a system of control if you're not going to tell people what you want to control" But you turned me around. Of course, you want to have vague rules.
This is, in theory how "capitalism" and "the free market" work. They use these points for things called "money."
If the justice system was fair, you wouldn't need some secondary system to deal with "cheating and crimes [that] are well known."