Why does this story have the GNOME footprint logo, when the thread is about KDE? That's retarded. KDE should have been the first keyword, and the KDE logo should have shown up.
Because it's less about the glories of KDE and more about annoyance with GNOME.
The corn states are politically important (disproportionately so) in any presidential campaign. There are no 'anti-corn' states. Therefore, politicians cannot threaten corn growers' livelihoods without the negative repercussions that no candidate can afford.
But those studies never take into account the fact that people who don't wear seat belts tend to have a much greater fatality rate, and every 18-year-old dumbass who gets himself killed without a seatbelt is someone the healthcare system won't have to treat for another 60 or 70 years.
I'd say the 18-year old is the exception to your rule -- the 18 year old is old enough to have required a lot of cost to raise, but dying at 18 means he'll never enter the most productive (financially) period of his life, the presumably healthy period where he contributes more to the system then he takes. But if he got into a fatal car crash at 50? 55? That's the point in which you could say there would be a net financial gain.
We're talking in the abstract and the aggregate, of course; everyone will be different. Some people are still truly productive at 70, some never get their lives together at any point.
Then it brings up the whole question about retirement. If I'm sitting on a few million when I retire, am I really costing that much money? I'm sure that $100k difference is easy to make disappear once you include my retirement.
When you have a degenerative illness that requires long-term care, that $100k is a drop in the bucket.
You realize that you're also questioning pretty much the whole foundation of economics, by asserting that price has nothing to do with demand
Addiction is another variable that skews the graph. When you are addicted to cigarettes, you HAVE TO SMOKE. You have to do it whether the taxes are a dollar a pack or 10 dollars. Higher prices just mean you pay more, since there are stronger bounds on demand than money.
Just look at all the stories of how hard it is for people to quit. Some can just go cold turkey, some need treatment, and some are just unable to manage it.
Steve Jobs was an odd sort. One of his pet peeves was that he didn't think anyone, anyone, could tell him what to do. He parked in handicapped spaces because he didn't think the government could tell him that there were parking spaces on his property that he couldn't use. It irked him that someone said "you couldn't park there." His response was a "I'll park wherever I want."
It's why he drove without a license plate. He was obsessive about not being "tracked," presumably by the government. Of course if you saw a Mercedes in a handicapped spot without a license plate, you knew whose it was.
And why is it that (note the clever playing of the race card) that only potentially displaced residents are the ones with creative or artistic value?
It panders to the masses of people who don't have much talent but like to think they do. Being able to sell their work is somehow "selling out" and thus artistically inferior. Somehow.
And it is also the home of Occupy Oakland -- one of the most activist, violent, and ill-tempered Occupy movements anywhere. Who wouldn't want that in their neighborhood?
Occupy Oakland, the police response, and the politician responses are a good example of the phrase "Oakland: they just can't seem to do anything right."
Though there's one thing I suppose we could agree on: health insurance should be decoupled from business. It doesn't make sense that an employer should have to provide it, since the destitute and unemployed need it just as much as anyone else.
Now you make a little revenue too. Oops California has a high corporate and income tax. They will take that away so you can't buy your company back from the investory. The cost of health insurnace is outrageous! Thanks to laws that promote equality any employee that works more than 29 hours a week has to have it! That alone will kill your startup.
It just amazes me that in our society you now think that health insurance should somehow be optional or considered a luxury.
The problem is that expensive housing has cascading effect, because business costs are higher as well. You have to pay employees more because they need to pay for housing too. So merchandise will be more expensive as well. Gas is more expensive, groceries, etc. All more expensive. It's not just the dollar amount of rent you need to factor in, because all these prices are interconnected.
Our federal taxes are written for folks in Idaho, which assume a certain, flat amount of money is enough to live on. They absolutely fuck over people who live in SF where rents are astronomical.
Mod this up to 1000. Tax rates are based entirely on flat salary amounts and don't take cost of living into account. A person making $50k in San Francisco would be considered lower middle class, maybe even the upper bounds of lower class if quality of life is taken into account. But federal and even state taxes don't take into account how much it costs to live somewhere, neither do things like the First Time Home Buyer Tax Credit, or various other income-dependent programs. People will say "fine, then don't live there." But that only means that the -only- jobs will be the high-end ones, and an area can only be served by a mix of high-end and low-end.
thinking money = amount of work. Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong
Well, it sort of does, but only for very over-simplified models. Money has always meant "value" not "work." If the work is equivalent, then supposedly more of that work == more money, less of it == less money. But not all work is equally valuable, and that's where this breaks down. The more demand and less availability for a particular task, the more money it will command. Very few people can do what an A-list actor can do. But many, many people want to see movies with really good acting. And thus, the actor commands a very high salary.
But then, there are people with skills that are uncommon, but almost no one is interested in them. That can be a grey area, but chances are they'll not command a high salary.
If you have a common skill though, like say you're a ditch digger or McDonalds burger flipper, or store shelf stocker, then chances are your salary will be pretty low. Yes, you may do more 'work' than the A-list actor, but if anyone can do what you do, you are easily replaceable and your salary will be low. Unions are they only things that can keep salaries up in that case by breaking the pure supply/demand model.
Gentrification also means telling homeless people they can't pee on buildings so that the whole downtown smells like urine, or cracking down on aggressive panhandlers.
and the resulting national depression predisposed the German people to radical alternatives. It didn't help that Hitler was a masterful orator with a Reality Distortion Field that would have made Steve Jobs look like Gerald Ford.
That, and he managed to gather up a private force to murder his opposition. His influence grew in the resulting vacuum of power.
Really, the only reason the Internet developed as well as it did was that it was allowed to develop in relative obscurity. If governments knew then what they know now, the Internet would have been fucked with on a constant basis, and we would all have been the poorer for it.
, as dictatorships and other oppressive regimes (islamic hellholes, communist states, "communist" states like China,...) essentially control the UN by shear numbers.
Except for super-important things which are controlled by the Security Council. While many of those regimes you are mentioned are on the Security Council as well, fortunately it doesn't work on majority rule, since individual nations can veto. It's a nice way to ensure things don't get done unless they have support (crafted from deals) by the council.
I wouldn't think that would be the definition of "circumstantial evidence." We can look at the fossil record, we can see transitions from one species to another, and so forth. That's direct evidence.
I usually hate analogies on Slashdot because they're so often misused, but consider the case of a murder scene. If someone said "I saw the accused walking down the street 15 minutes before the murder," that's circumstantial evidence. A gun used in a murder is recovered at the scene, and it has the accused's fingerprints on it. That's not circumstantial evidence, that's hard evidence, even though the police didn't need to be able to witness the event itself or capture it on camera. They can draw conclusions based on the smoking gun. Is it evidence beyond the possibility of any doubt? Certainly not, the accused could have been framed. But it is the most likely explanation, and we tend to go for the most likely explanation that fits the evidence unless we have reason to believe the evidence is faulty.
Slashdot Mirror
Why does this story have the GNOME footprint logo, when the thread is about KDE? That's retarded. KDE should have been the first keyword, and the KDE logo should have shown up.
Because it's less about the glories of KDE and more about annoyance with GNOME.
The corn states are politically important (disproportionately so) in any presidential campaign. There are no 'anti-corn' states. Therefore, politicians cannot threaten corn growers' livelihoods without the negative repercussions that no candidate can afford.
But those studies never take into account the fact that people who don't wear seat belts tend to have a much greater fatality rate, and every 18-year-old dumbass who gets himself killed without a seatbelt is someone the healthcare system won't have to treat for another 60 or 70 years.
I'd say the 18-year old is the exception to your rule -- the 18 year old is old enough to have required a lot of cost to raise, but dying at 18 means he'll never enter the most productive (financially) period of his life, the presumably healthy period where he contributes more to the system then he takes. But if he got into a fatal car crash at 50? 55? That's the point in which you could say there would be a net financial gain.
We're talking in the abstract and the aggregate, of course; everyone will be different. Some people are still truly productive at 70, some never get their lives together at any point.
Then it brings up the whole question about retirement. If I'm sitting on a few million when I retire, am I really costing that much money? I'm sure that $100k difference is easy to make disappear once you include my retirement.
When you have a degenerative illness that requires long-term care, that $100k is a drop in the bucket.
You realize that you're also questioning pretty much the whole foundation of economics, by asserting that price has nothing to do with demand
Addiction is another variable that skews the graph. When you are addicted to cigarettes, you HAVE TO SMOKE. You have to do it whether the taxes are a dollar a pack or 10 dollars. Higher prices just mean you pay more, since there are stronger bounds on demand than money.
Just look at all the stories of how hard it is for people to quit. Some can just go cold turkey, some need treatment, and some are just unable to manage it.
Steve Jobs was an odd sort. One of his pet peeves was that he didn't think anyone, anyone, could tell him what to do. He parked in handicapped spaces because he didn't think the government could tell him that there were parking spaces on his property that he couldn't use. It irked him that someone said "you couldn't park there." His response was a "I'll park wherever I want."
It's why he drove without a license plate. He was obsessive about not being "tracked," presumably by the government. Of course if you saw a Mercedes in a handicapped spot without a license plate, you knew whose it was.
And why is it that (note the clever playing of the race card) that only potentially displaced residents are the ones with creative or artistic value?
It panders to the masses of people who don't have much talent but like to think they do. Being able to sell their work is somehow "selling out" and thus artistically inferior. Somehow.
And it is also the home of Occupy Oakland -- one of the most activist, violent, and ill-tempered Occupy movements anywhere. Who wouldn't want that in their neighborhood?
Occupy Oakland, the police response, and the politician responses are a good example of the phrase "Oakland: they just can't seem to do anything right."
Though there's one thing I suppose we could agree on: health insurance should be decoupled from business. It doesn't make sense that an employer should have to provide it, since the destitute and unemployed need it just as much as anyone else.
Now you make a little revenue too. Oops California has a high corporate and income tax. They will take that away so you can't buy your company back from the investory. The cost of health insurnace is outrageous! Thanks to laws that promote equality any employee that works more than 29 hours a week has to have it! That alone will kill your startup.
It just amazes me that in our society you now think that health insurance should somehow be optional or considered a luxury.
Once you get to be a total douchebag hipster, you want 'real' coffee from a coffeehouse, and Starbucks is seen as cheap-quality, low-class stuff.
The problem is that expensive housing has cascading effect, because business costs are higher as well. You have to pay employees more because they need to pay for housing too. So merchandise will be more expensive as well. Gas is more expensive, groceries, etc. All more expensive. It's not just the dollar amount of rent you need to factor in, because all these prices are interconnected.
You forget taxes.
Our federal taxes are written for folks in Idaho, which assume a certain, flat amount of money is enough to live on. They absolutely fuck over people who live in SF where rents are astronomical.
Mod this up to 1000. Tax rates are based entirely on flat salary amounts and don't take cost of living into account. A person making $50k in San Francisco would be considered lower middle class, maybe even the upper bounds of lower class if quality of life is taken into account. But federal and even state taxes don't take into account how much it costs to live somewhere, neither do things like the First Time Home Buyer Tax Credit, or various other income-dependent programs. People will say "fine, then don't live there." But that only means that the -only- jobs will be the high-end ones, and an area can only be served by a mix of high-end and low-end.
thinking money = amount of work. Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong
Well, it sort of does, but only for very over-simplified models. Money has always meant "value" not "work." If the work is equivalent, then supposedly more of that work == more money, less of it == less money. But not all work is equally valuable, and that's where this breaks down. The more demand and less availability for a particular task, the more money it will command. Very few people can do what an A-list actor can do. But many, many people want to see movies with really good acting. And thus, the actor commands a very high salary.
But then, there are people with skills that are uncommon, but almost no one is interested in them. That can be a grey area, but chances are they'll not command a high salary.
If you have a common skill though, like say you're a ditch digger or McDonalds burger flipper, or store shelf stocker, then chances are your salary will be pretty low. Yes, you may do more 'work' than the A-list actor, but if anyone can do what you do, you are easily replaceable and your salary will be low. Unions are they only things that can keep salaries up in that case by breaking the pure supply/demand model.
"Real artists ship."
Drug "wars" between potheads usually just involve a lot of whining.
Gentrification also means telling homeless people they can't pee on buildings so that the whole downtown smells like urine, or cracking down on aggressive panhandlers.
It's sort of a British thing.
You really should look around you some time.
and the resulting national depression predisposed the German people to radical alternatives. It didn't help that Hitler was a masterful orator with a Reality Distortion Field that would have made Steve Jobs look like Gerald Ford.
That, and he managed to gather up a private force to murder his opposition. His influence grew in the resulting vacuum of power.
Really, the only reason the Internet developed as well as it did was that it was allowed to develop in relative obscurity. If governments knew then what they know now, the Internet would have been fucked with on a constant basis, and we would all have been the poorer for it.
, as dictatorships and other oppressive regimes (islamic hellholes, communist states, "communist" states like China, ...) essentially control the UN by shear numbers.
Except for super-important things which are controlled by the Security Council. While many of those regimes you are mentioned are on the Security Council as well, fortunately it doesn't work on majority rule, since individual nations can veto. It's a nice way to ensure things don't get done unless they have support (crafted from deals) by the council.
Sorry! but WINE is _not_ safe. There is still a thing called software patents
What it would mean is that Wine is safe from copyright claims, but not all IP claims.
Please don't use the No True Scotsman fallacy.
I wouldn't think that would be the definition of "circumstantial evidence." We can look at the fossil record, we can see transitions from one species to another, and so forth. That's direct evidence.
I usually hate analogies on Slashdot because they're so often misused, but consider the case of a murder scene. If someone said "I saw the accused walking down the street 15 minutes before the murder," that's circumstantial evidence. A gun used in a murder is recovered at the scene, and it has the accused's fingerprints on it. That's not circumstantial evidence, that's hard evidence, even though the police didn't need to be able to witness the event itself or capture it on camera. They can draw conclusions based on the smoking gun. Is it evidence beyond the possibility of any doubt? Certainly not, the accused could have been framed. But it is the most likely explanation, and we tend to go for the most likely explanation that fits the evidence unless we have reason to believe the evidence is faulty.
This post deserves to be moderated up to 5 more than any of the current Score:5 comments in this thread.