My best solution is that we have a tax on the wealthiest to subsidize those that don't have skills that don't allow them to hit pverty level.
We do. It's called the income tax. It's not always a large enough subsidy to bring low-earners up to the poverty line, but someone working full time at minimum wage is eligible for more in benefits than they're paying in taxes.
What? There's absolutely difference between 87 octane and 92+ octane. While many high end cars are able to compensate for this difference by sacrificing efficiency, it's certainly not wise to put the lower grade gasoline in a high performance vehicle. Not a good analogy at all.
Presumably people who say a show sucked still watched the show, and for the purposes of advertising money that's all that matters. If they really do think the show sucked they'll stop watching and talking about it next week.
Yes, you can split bitcoins. Most people that I've seen accepting bitcoins allow the price in bit coins to float with the exchange rate, so you always pay the same amount in USD.
Pocketwatches went out of style because wristwatches were more convenient. Wristwatches were traditionally worn by women, until soldiers in WWI realized that it was impractical to have to dig through your pockets to check the time. This argument still holds against the cellphone. I started wearing a watch after cellphones became a popular accessory, and I'd never go back. I really do find that it's nice to have the time strapped to my wrist.
Then there's the social aspect. Older generations wear watches, and associate pulling out a cellphone to check the time with teenagers and young people. Maybe once they've retired and are replaced by the younger generation a cellphone will be seen as on-par with a wristwatch.
I hope they also have regular $8/10 ticket for one movie. (most people wont see two movies in one day)
Seeing as how the previous iteration of the business went under following that model, I don't think it's likely that they'll be attempting it. I think that if the customers know that they can go to the movies for $8/10 like they're used to, the theater will be hard pressed to hit that 3,000 member mark.
Or, you know, people selling counterfeit merchandise have to be relatively easy for customers to consistently find, while the other criminals you mention are actively avoiding detection, and have no reason to stay on the same domains/servers for very long, making them much harder to shut down.
Your analogy is flawed. It would be much more appropriate to say "Throw away your Ferrari and buy a Tesla Roadster, and see if you think it was worth it."
>How about the postal service let me opt out of getting junk mail delivered?
In a lot of places (Britain particularly) the postal service relies on the money paid by junk mailers. No junk mail, no funding for delivering real mail.
Your 2% is misleading. What that means is that of 100 couples who have sex with a condom regularly for a year, 2 will have an unwanted pregnancy. It does not mean that if you have sex with a condom 50 times, you are statistically likely to get pregnant.
Because the reasonable form of banning something is regulating it, and saying that you want to regulate something gets you labeled as a psycho socialist.
Unless you're already browsing cookie-free, Google is already looking over your shoulder 100% of the time. This doesn't change anything. Google is simply putting all that information they already collect to good use.
It took 2 years to build a case against 100 of these people, and I'd be incredibly surprised if 100 people even amount to 1% of all phishers. I'd say that that the other 99% have pretty much gotten away with it.
Yeah, I would tend to call BS on that particular statistic. Let's say the average water bottle is.5L. In that one, single water bottle that is sitting on my desk, there are 5.01*10^25 atoms. That's one hell of a number.
Now, let's pretend God has a really good magnifying glass and a really small set of tweezers, and he's removing atoms from this water bottle at a rate of 1 per second. Conservative estimates put the universe at 13.5 billion years old, which converts to 4.25*10^17 seconds.
So, since the beginning of time, God has removed 4.25*10^17 atoms from my water bottle. A lot, right? Not quit. (4.25*10^17)/(5.01*10^25)=8.00*10^-9.
Even removing an atom every second since the beginning of time, only a few trillionths are missing from my bottle of water. That's just a bottle of water, now imagine the number of atoms in the ocean, or in the sun. Something does not seem right with the "More than number of atoms in the universe" claim.
I think it has more to do with the fact that the private sector is so much more profitable. Who wants to work for the state when they could be making the big bucks working for a private firm?
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.apple.com/mac-pro/
My best solution is that we have a tax on the wealthiest to subsidize those that don't have skills that don't allow them to hit pverty level.
We do. It's called the income tax. It's not always a large enough subsidy to bring low-earners up to the poverty line, but someone working full time at minimum wage is eligible for more in benefits than they're paying in taxes.
For a lot of people, "a screen and an easier set up" are easily worth that extra $100 over a Raspberry Pi.
What? There's absolutely difference between 87 octane and 92+ octane. While many high end cars are able to compensate for this difference by sacrificing efficiency, it's certainly not wise to put the lower grade gasoline in a high performance vehicle. Not a good analogy at all.
Presumably people who say a show sucked still watched the show, and for the purposes of advertising money that's all that matters. If they really do think the show sucked they'll stop watching and talking about it next week.
Yes, you can split bitcoins. Most people that I've seen accepting bitcoins allow the price in bit coins to float with the exchange rate, so you always pay the same amount in USD.
Then there's the social aspect. Older generations wear watches, and associate pulling out a cellphone to check the time with teenagers and young people. Maybe once they've retired and are replaced by the younger generation a cellphone will be seen as on-par with a wristwatch.
Most anyone who works in a somewhat formal environment. Pulling out your cellphone to check the time looks unprofessional.
I hope they also have regular $8/10 ticket for one movie. (most people wont see two movies in one day)
Seeing as how the previous iteration of the business went under following that model, I don't think it's likely that they'll be attempting it. I think that if the customers know that they can go to the movies for $8/10 like they're used to, the theater will be hard pressed to hit that 3,000 member mark.
Or, you know, people selling counterfeit merchandise have to be relatively easy for customers to consistently find, while the other criminals you mention are actively avoiding detection, and have no reason to stay on the same domains/servers for very long, making them much harder to shut down.
This seems like little more than an ad for a product. It's a cool recreational vehicle, but is it really "New For Nerds"?
8 million feet = 1,515 miles, in case anyone was wondering.
Your analogy is flawed. It would be much more appropriate to say "Throw away your Ferrari and buy a Tesla Roadster, and see if you think it was worth it."
In a lot of places (Britain particularly) the postal service relies on the money paid by junk mailers. No junk mail, no funding for delivering real mail.
>I'm sure I could do it
Oh the irony...
Your 2% is misleading. What that means is that of 100 couples who have sex with a condom regularly for a year, 2 will have an unwanted pregnancy. It does not mean that if you have sex with a condom 50 times, you are statistically likely to get pregnant.
yes.
Because the reasonable form of banning something is regulating it, and saying that you want to regulate something gets you labeled as a psycho socialist.
Unless you're already browsing cookie-free, Google is already looking over your shoulder 100% of the time. This doesn't change anything. Google is simply putting all that information they already collect to good use.
It took 2 years to build a case against 100 of these people, and I'd be incredibly surprised if 100 people even amount to 1% of all phishers. I'd say that that the other 99% have pretty much gotten away with it.
http://xkcd.com/538/
The reference, for those who aren't Onion fans.
Yeah, I would tend to call BS on that particular statistic. Let's say the average water bottle is .5L. In that one, single water bottle that is sitting on my desk, there are 5.01*10^25 atoms. That's one hell of a number.
Now, let's pretend God has a really good magnifying glass and a really small set of tweezers, and he's removing atoms from this water bottle at a rate of 1 per second. Conservative estimates put the universe at 13.5 billion years old, which converts to 4.25*10^17 seconds.
So, since the beginning of time, God has removed 4.25*10^17 atoms from my water bottle. A lot, right? Not quit. (4.25*10^17)/(5.01*10^25)=8.00*10^-9.
Even removing an atom every second since the beginning of time, only a few trillionths are missing from my bottle of water. That's just a bottle of water, now imagine the number of atoms in the ocean, or in the sun. Something does not seem right with the "More than number of atoms in the universe" claim.
I think it has more to do with the fact that the private sector is so much more profitable. Who wants to work for the state when they could be making the big bucks working for a private firm?
Go to the nearest church and advertise a game involving dead fetuses. Word will spread like wild fire and your marketing budget is next to nothing.