The amusing thing is that while you're attempting sarcasm, you're actually not wrong.
If enough people start using the word "three" to represent the quantity now known as "two" you would have redefined the word "three" and not done anything at all to math.
Of course, it won't happen, because it's fucking stupid and people won't actually do that, but yes, language works that way.
But "begs the question" has an obvious plain language meaning, and it's not related to an obscure meaning about a logical fallacy. It was actually a mistranslation of Latin that associated it with the logical fallacy in the first place, so being pedantic about it is actually to be wrong.
Note that the post above claimed that "That includes bonuses, stock options, etc."
And CEO pay isn't typically negotiated with investors. It's decided by the board of directors, which is typically composed of other CEOs. And while they're technically elected by shareholders, in reality they are picked by very few shareholders.
While that's not impossible, there are 50 states and I haven't read all of the applicable laws in all of them, I've never seen a case where that's true. The laws I've seen place conditions on the driver, but do not address one not being present, making a self-driving car de facto legal.
It doesn't seem to matter to a lot of people. They mention something that they think a technology can't do, someone else provides proof that the technology is already doing it, and they keep believing it can't do it.
Self-driving cars are already a reality. They're here and on the roads now, they will be in mass production within 5 years, and people are still claiming that they won't work, even though they clearly do.
I'm very much aware of how tax brackets work. Apple makes so much more than $415k/year that the income taxed at lower brackets would be a rounding error.
It's a common tactic, possibly well-meaning, possibly to deflect criticism of actual racism.
The old literacy test for voting laws weren't generally racist as written. But they were certainly racist as implemented.
Today's racism is (or was, until Trump) more subtle. But it's certainly there, and while individual cops may not be racists, the police taken as a whole in this country certainly are.
You're talking about the old "broken windows" theory.
It's been discredited, of course. It doesn't actually accomplish anything other than locking up poor people, and it's been used in a very disproportionally racist manner.
When you do a comparison of crime rates in cities that used it and cities that didn't, both have seen a decrease in crime. Probably the most likely reason has been the removal of lead from gasoline, significantly reducing the degree of low-level lead poisoning.
Slashdot Mirror
The amusing thing is that while you're attempting sarcasm, you're actually not wrong.
If enough people start using the word "three" to represent the quantity now known as "two" you would have redefined the word "three" and not done anything at all to math.
Of course, it won't happen, because it's fucking stupid and people won't actually do that, but yes, language works that way.
But "begs the question" has an obvious plain language meaning, and it's not related to an obscure meaning about a logical fallacy. It was actually a mistranslation of Latin that associated it with the logical fallacy in the first place, so being pedantic about it is actually to be wrong.
Note that the post above claimed that "That includes bonuses, stock options, etc."
And CEO pay isn't typically negotiated with investors. It's decided by the board of directors, which is typically composed of other CEOs. And while they're technically elected by shareholders, in reality they are picked by very few shareholders.
Those numbers are clearly bogus, they show top CEO pay being $423k.
Exactly. The job attracts psychopaths. The hiring process looks for psychopaths.
They aren't, of course. Because in actual use, "begs the question" means roughly the same thing as "raises the question".
English, it's not a dead language.
Kill them all.
I'm sorry, e-ink sucks. LCD or OLED is the way to go, e-ink gives me a massive headache and it's FAR harder to read.
The contrast is better, the text is sharper, it provides its own light, it weighs less, it doesn't lose my place when I drop it, it's less fragile.
Nope. The paper book is in every way inferior.
Using a Mac is wise.
Not using a Mac is just plain fucking stupid.
While that's not impossible, there are 50 states and I haven't read all of the applicable laws in all of them, I've never seen a case where that's true. The laws I've seen place conditions on the driver, but do not address one not being present, making a self-driving car de facto legal.
It doesn't seem to matter to a lot of people. They mention something that they think a technology can't do, someone else provides proof that the technology is already doing it, and they keep believing it can't do it.
Self-driving cars are already a reality. They're here and on the roads now, they will be in mass production within 5 years, and people are still claiming that they won't work, even though they clearly do.
I can't think of a state where it's ever been illegal to put a self-driving car on the road.
The technology to do so hasn't been ready until recently. Why would a state outlaw what isn't possible?
And that which is not illegal is, by default, legal.
I'm very much aware of how tax brackets work. Apple makes so much more than $415k/year that the income taxed at lower brackets would be a rounding error.
That's completely inaccurate. A heat pump is one of the most efficient and least expensive options for heating.
The reason they're not used in very cold places is that they become less useful with an outdoor temp below 35 F.
In a location with many heating days but temps in the 40s and 50s, a heat pump would be your best choice.
And you somehow think that's enough?
The US top tax rate is 39.6%.
That's what Apple should be paying, not 25%.
It's a common tactic, possibly well-meaning, possibly to deflect criticism of actual racism.
The old literacy test for voting laws weren't generally racist as written. But they were certainly racist as implemented.
Today's racism is (or was, until Trump) more subtle. But it's certainly there, and while individual cops may not be racists, the police taken as a whole in this country certainly are.
There is no such duty.
Under certain circumstances it may be illegal to actively conceal a crime, but you have absolutely no duty to report a felony.
No, that's what they tried.
This experiment is a failure, and is causing real-world harm.
The best thing to do is delete the data and stop collecting more. Sometimes a hard drive wipe really is the best thing to do.
You're talking about the old "broken windows" theory.
It's been discredited, of course. It doesn't actually accomplish anything other than locking up poor people, and it's been used in a very disproportionally racist manner.
When you do a comparison of crime rates in cities that used it and cities that didn't, both have seen a decrease in crime. Probably the most likely reason has been the removal of lead from gasoline, significantly reducing the degree of low-level lead poisoning.
No, this country is severely overcopped. What we need is fewer police.
I think a 90% reduction would be a good start.
In the US? Of course not.
In Canada? I don't know, but I'd seriously doubt it.
No.
But Donald Drumpf does.
Social programs and the space program are both worthwhile things to spend money on.
What we need to do is fully fund both, and cut the useless military and law enforcement spending.
Compared to Drumpf, who has called for indiscriminate bombing?
She's practically a flower child.
Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is also your enemy.
Hillary will be more of the same, she's really very similar to Obama in policies, more crooked personally, but that's not going to matter.
Drumpf would be a disaster.