Again, you have not read up on the history of the medallions. Why don't you address the many problems that occurred because there were too many cabs? So the question becomes: which is worse, too many cabs, or too few cabs.
Your simplistic economic principle has as much meaning and validity in the real world as a physics problem that starts 'assume no friction in a perfect vacuum'.
PS. If it is a credit union, as you state, then YOU are one of the owners. Did you do due diligence and vote for the proper board members, who would hire the management you want, or do you just let someone else do all that and whine when things go wrong?
That is just nonsense. Banks certainly can and do fail, and the FDIC does NOTHING to protect them. The FDIC is protecting the DEPOSITORS (ie, you). If a bank fails, the owners of the bank have lost their investment. The owners do not get to keep their investment just because the assets of the bank were bought by someone else. There is no reason employees or customers of a bank should suffer because the owners installed bad management. If the new owners keep that same bad management then they risk losing their investment too.
So how many of the people complaining about this actually pay Mozilla anything? And what makes you think the people who actually are paying don't want these changes?
So what you are saying is that once someone does something you like (and gets nothing in return from you), they are somehow obligated (technically, legally, morally, whatever) to continue doing that for you (for free) forever? How entitled can you get?
But open source is supposed to be about what the users want
Since when? Seems to me open source is primarily about what the developers want, and if the 'user' happens to have developer skills he can make it what he wants. Which open source projects are the ones that do what the users (vs developers) want?
I think you misunderstand what 'odds' are in horse racing. The odds do not reflect the probability of winning, they only reflect the payoff if you happen to win.
Horse race wagering is a parimutuel system. All of the money for a particular type of bet (win, for instance) goes into a pool. The track gets a certain percentage of that money, and that is their only interest in the race. The rest of the money is paid to the winning ticket holders. So, if many people bet on the horse that won the payout for each ticket will be low. Say, for example, that a total of 10 win bets were placed, and 9 of them were for one horse. The odds for that horse would be 1:9, because the nine winning tickets would split the one remaining bet. The odds for the other horse would be 9:1, and if that horse wins the person who bet on him gets the 9 bets that were on the other horse.
Place and show bets work exactly the same way, each with their own pools. The difference is that a place bet wins if the horse comes in first or second, and a show bet wins if the horse comes in first, second, or third.
Not even close to the same thing. Facebook is not rejecting people because they are Sikh, they are rejecting the content. Can a Sikh post on Facebook? Yes. If a non-Sikh posted the exact same thing would it get rejected? Yes.
There is no muddiness at all. If you reject something because of some characteristic of the PERSON who said you MAY run afoul of anti-discrimination laws. If you reject something because of what the CONTENT is that is 100% freedom of expression.
"a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work."
Once it is 'easily broken' the violation has already taken place, since effective is defined as in normal operation.
C is slower than shit too, if you launch a new VM every time you want to run a program. Of course in the real world nobody does that, just like, outside of desktop apps, nobody starts a new JVM every time they run some Java code.
The mantle is denser than the crust. Mountains have more crust under them, hence less mantle. Therefore, since there is less of the dense material, the mass under the mountain is less than the mass under the ocean. Nothing to do with weight.
Because he is making the very large mistake of think everything that is not labor IN THAT BUSINESS is a 'fixed' cost. And it most certainly is not. Take the example of McDonalds. The mininum wage guy at McDonalds gets a raise, and the original poster assumes that his raise is the total increased cost to McDonalds, so it should not affect the price of McDonalds products all that much. But the minimum wage guy at the plant that prints soda cups also gets a raise, so the price of soda cups goes up to pay for it. And the minimum wage guy at the paper plant gets a raise too, so in addition to the cost to the printer going up because he has to pay his employee more, the cost of the raw cups also went up because the paper plant had to pay his employees more.
Looking at it from the other direction, the feed grower has to pay his hired hands more, so he must sell his seed for more money. The guy at the feed store has to pay his employees more, so the cost of feed to the rancher now went up by the amount the grower had to increase his pay plus the amount that the feed store had to increase his pay. And now the rancher has his considerably more expensive feed, plus he has to pay his hands more. So now the meat packer has to pay for the more expensive cattle, plus he has to pay his employees more. So when McDonalds buys a burger they are paying for raises for the seed grower, the feed store, the rancher, the packer, and everyone else in that supply chain. But you think when you BUY a burger at McDonalds the only increase would be the raise the McDonalds employee got?
It is not 'hand-waving away as profit', it IS profit. If you think it is something OTHER than profit, exactly what is it?
And face it, the only reason you keep harping on 'gold' is because it is such an outlier. The profit-to-labor ratio of gold is not at all typical. And how many minimum-wage employees do you think are concerned with the cost of gold? Back here in the real world, minimum wage employees are concerned with the price of food. And the price of food is very much influenced by labor costs. So if every employee in the food chain suddenly gets a raise, you would have to be a complete idiot the think the cost of food is not going to rise correspondingly. And if the price of food rises correspondingly, all those minimum wage people have exactly the same buying power as they had before.
The point I am making, and which you can't seem to grasp, is that the minimum wage does not only apply at the retail level, it goes ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE SUPPLY CHAIN. Yes, the guy working at McDonalds gets a raise, but so does the guy working at the packing plant where the burgers were made, and the guy at the slaughterhouse, and the ranch hand where the cattle was raised, and the guy working at the feed store, and the farm laborer, and the guy at the tractor factory, and the guy at the tractor parts factory, and so on and so on. And if you can't see how all of that LABOR is the MAJORITY of the cost of your burger, you clearly can't think well.
Think real carefully now, what makes up the cost of storage, climate control, security? PROFIT and LABOR and NOTHING ELSE.
Answer this, if all labor and profit costs (including those paid to the government, criminals, etc) was $0, what would the cost of something be? There is only one answer: $0.
If 'profit' is confusing you, then use these terms instead: there are only two components to the cost of anything, money paid to people who did some work involved in producing the product, and money paid to people who did not directly produce the product. When you pay taxes, license fees, etc, some of that money goes to pay people who provided a service (labor), and some goes to people who were not directly involved in providing that service, just like profit.
Think for more than half a second, maybe it will come to you. In case it doesn't, here is a clue. The ONLY componenta of raw materials cost are labor and profit, unless you think that the earth itself is collecting money before coughing up raw materials. License fees are just covering profit and labor costs for the government.
Taxes and protection money are just profits to other parties. Gold? Is there a giant coin slot that you must pay into before the earth gives up its gold? Of course not. The only reason you have to pay for gold is because of labor and profits. Have some mining equipment? Where did that come from? Labor and profits.
This is one of the stupidest comments ever. ALL of the cost of goods falls into only two categories: labor, and profit. Often 'profit' is small or missing altogether, a 'high' profit is about 25% which leaves only labor as by far the largest component of cost.
What are you talking about? Title is a concept, not a physical thing. The state issues Certifcates of Title which prove that, as far as the state is concerned, you hold the title. The 'Certificate of' makes not one bit of difference. The state makes you surrender your 'title' because they are the official holder of the ownership record. You can't have two different entities claiming to be in control of the record.
And even if what you said made any sense, it doesn't change a single thing, because the bank doesn't hold the title in either case.
The State of New York definitely issues you the title when you buy a car, even there is a loan. If there is a loan the bank is listed as having a lien on the title, but you still have the title. When you pay off the loan you get a release of lien letter from the bank. You can then take the letter to the DMV and get the lien removed from the title. The only way the bank would ever get the title is by taking legal procedings against you.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, you have not read up on the history of the medallions. Why don't you address the many problems that occurred because there were too many cabs? So the question becomes: which is worse, too many cabs, or too few cabs.
Your simplistic economic principle has as much meaning and validity in the real world as a physics problem that starts 'assume no friction in a perfect vacuum'.
PS. If it is a credit union, as you state, then YOU are one of the owners. Did you do due diligence and vote for the proper board members, who would hire the management you want, or do you just let someone else do all that and whine when things go wrong?
That is just nonsense. Banks certainly can and do fail, and the FDIC does NOTHING to protect them. The FDIC is protecting the DEPOSITORS (ie, you). If a bank fails, the owners of the bank have lost their investment. The owners do not get to keep their investment just because the assets of the bank were bought by someone else. There is no reason employees or customers of a bank should suffer because the owners installed bad management. If the new owners keep that same bad management then they risk losing their investment too.
Yeah, the savings are in transport, because the materials for 3D printing just magically appear, without being transported.
So how many of the people complaining about this actually pay Mozilla anything? And what makes you think the people who actually are paying don't want these changes?
So what you are saying is that once someone does something you like (and gets nothing in return from you), they are somehow obligated (technically, legally, morally, whatever) to continue doing that for you (for free) forever? How entitled can you get?
But open source is supposed to be about what the users want
Since when? Seems to me open source is primarily about what the developers want, and if the 'user' happens to have developer skills he can make it what he wants. Which open source projects are the ones that do what the users (vs developers) want?
I think you misunderstand what 'odds' are in horse racing. The odds do not reflect the probability of winning, they only reflect the payoff if you happen to win.
Horse race wagering is a parimutuel system. All of the money for a particular type of bet (win, for instance) goes into a pool. The track gets a certain percentage of that money, and that is their only interest in the race. The rest of the money is paid to the winning ticket holders. So, if many people bet on the horse that won the payout for each ticket will be low. Say, for example, that a total of 10 win bets were placed, and 9 of them were for one horse. The odds for that horse would be 1:9, because the nine winning tickets would split the one remaining bet. The odds for the other horse would be 9:1, and if that horse wins the person who bet on him gets the 9 bets that were on the other horse.
Place and show bets work exactly the same way, each with their own pools. The difference is that a place bet wins if the horse comes in first or second, and a show bet wins if the horse comes in first, second, or third.
Not even close to the same thing. Facebook is not rejecting people because they are Sikh, they are rejecting the content. Can a Sikh post on Facebook? Yes. If a non-Sikh posted the exact same thing would it get rejected? Yes.
There is no muddiness at all. If you reject something because of some characteristic of the PERSON who said you MAY run afoul of anti-discrimination laws. If you reject something because of what the CONTENT is that is 100% freedom of expression.
No, you can't. You must have standing.
Not everyone can be vaccinated (allergies, compromised immune systems), and vaccines are not 100% effective.
Read a little further. Section 1201-a-3-B states:
"a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work."
Once it is 'easily broken' the violation has already taken place, since effective is defined as in normal operation.
C is slower than shit too, if you launch a new VM every time you want to run a program. Of course in the real world nobody does that, just like, outside of desktop apps, nobody starts a new JVM every time they run some Java code.
I take it you never heard of Android? Or enterprise software?
The mantle is denser than the crust. Mountains have more crust under them, hence less mantle. Therefore, since there is less of the dense material, the mass under the mountain is less than the mass under the ocean. Nothing to do with weight.
Because he is making the very large mistake of think everything that is not labor IN THAT BUSINESS is a 'fixed' cost. And it most certainly is not. Take the example of McDonalds. The mininum wage guy at McDonalds gets a raise, and the original poster assumes that his raise is the total increased cost to McDonalds, so it should not affect the price of McDonalds products all that much. But the minimum wage guy at the plant that prints soda cups also gets a raise, so the price of soda cups goes up to pay for it. And the minimum wage guy at the paper plant gets a raise too, so in addition to the cost to the printer going up because he has to pay his employee more, the cost of the raw cups also went up because the paper plant had to pay his employees more.
Looking at it from the other direction, the feed grower has to pay his hired hands more, so he must sell his seed for more money. The guy at the feed store has to pay his employees more, so the cost of feed to the rancher now went up by the amount the grower had to increase his pay plus the amount that the feed store had to increase his pay. And now the rancher has his considerably more expensive feed, plus he has to pay his hands more. So now the meat packer has to pay for the more expensive cattle, plus he has to pay his employees more. So when McDonalds buys a burger they are paying for raises for the seed grower, the feed store, the rancher, the packer, and everyone else in that supply chain. But you think when you BUY a burger at McDonalds the only increase would be the raise the McDonalds employee got?
It is not 'hand-waving away as profit', it IS profit. If you think it is something OTHER than profit, exactly what is it?
And face it, the only reason you keep harping on 'gold' is because it is such an outlier. The profit-to-labor ratio of gold is not at all typical. And how many minimum-wage employees do you think are concerned with the cost of gold? Back here in the real world, minimum wage employees are concerned with the price of food. And the price of food is very much influenced by labor costs. So if every employee in the food chain suddenly gets a raise, you would have to be a complete idiot the think the cost of food is not going to rise correspondingly. And if the price of food rises correspondingly, all those minimum wage people have exactly the same buying power as they had before.
The point I am making, and which you can't seem to grasp, is that the minimum wage does not only apply at the retail level, it goes ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE SUPPLY CHAIN. Yes, the guy working at McDonalds gets a raise, but so does the guy working at the packing plant where the burgers were made, and the guy at the slaughterhouse, and the ranch hand where the cattle was raised, and the guy working at the feed store, and the farm laborer, and the guy at the tractor factory, and the guy at the tractor parts factory, and so on and so on. And if you can't see how all of that LABOR is the MAJORITY of the cost of your burger, you clearly can't think well.
Think real carefully now, what makes up the cost of storage, climate control, security? PROFIT and LABOR and NOTHING ELSE.
Answer this, if all labor and profit costs (including those paid to the government, criminals, etc) was $0, what would the cost of something be? There is only one answer: $0.
If 'profit' is confusing you, then use these terms instead: there are only two components to the cost of anything, money paid to people who did some work involved in producing the product, and money paid to people who did not directly produce the product. When you pay taxes, license fees, etc, some of that money goes to pay people who provided a service (labor), and some goes to people who were not directly involved in providing that service, just like profit.
Think for more than half a second, maybe it will come to you. In case it doesn't, here is a clue. The ONLY componenta of raw materials cost are labor and profit, unless you think that the earth itself is collecting money before coughing up raw materials. License fees are just covering profit and labor costs for the government.
Taxes and protection money are just profits to other parties. Gold? Is there a giant coin slot that you must pay into before the earth gives up its gold? Of course not. The only reason you have to pay for gold is because of labor and profits. Have some mining equipment? Where did that come from? Labor and profits.
This is one of the stupidest comments ever. ALL of the cost of goods falls into only two categories: labor, and profit. Often 'profit' is small or missing altogether, a 'high' profit is about 25% which leaves only labor as by far the largest component of cost.
What are you talking about? Title is a concept, not a physical thing. The state issues Certifcates of Title which prove that, as far as the state is concerned, you hold the title. The 'Certificate of' makes not one bit of difference. The state makes you surrender your 'title' because they are the official holder of the ownership record. You can't have two different entities claiming to be in control of the record.
And even if what you said made any sense, it doesn't change a single thing, because the bank doesn't hold the title in either case.
The State of New York definitely issues you the title when you buy a car, even there is a loan. If there is a loan the bank is listed as having a lien on the title, but you still have the title. When you pay off the loan you get a release of lien letter from the bank. You can then take the letter to the DMV and get the lien removed from the title. The only way the bank would ever get the title is by taking legal procedings against you.