The road-rage incidence was a conviction under "causing death by criminal negligence" which has a maximum penalty of life in prison and a minimum of 0 (unless a gun is involved).
So does this idiot summary writer really think that a maximum of 10 years in prison is greater than a maximum of life in prison?
And yes people convicted for wearing a mask are also not going to get the maximum.
No, it's called Association Football as opposed to American Football or Rugby Football. Since those are rather long and tedious we tend to shorten them.
The English gave us soccer via slang : Association -> Assoc. -> soccer. Like Brekkers for breakfast and tener for ten pound note.
Obviously if one type dominates all the others in some area then "football" is going to be used for it.
Maybe look up what the FDA does and you'll educate yourself a little?
The FDA also regulates medical devices, radiation-emitting devices, cosmetics, vaccines, biologics, tobacco products, veterinary products, interstate travel sanitation, and probably a bunch of other things. All of which is mind numbingly obvious within 10 seconds of looking up the FDA.
The "scapegoats" job was to check the damn CV. He screwed up and clearly didn't bother doing his job. That'll get you sacked in most jobs.
Of course the CEO should go to, then again he's demonstrated he can deceive people which is probably a useful skill for getting investors to overvalue the company,
If someone has an 8% student loan I'm assuming it was taken out when interest rates where higher than they are now.
Though I also think that interest rates are not just too low compared with historic levels but also with respect to the where the market would put them.
By the link you describe that causes investments to underprice risk which in turn leads to investors taking more risks in order to get "reasonable" returns (basically how much capital you need to generate enough to live on). That gives you a financial system prone to collapse since the actual levels of risk being taken are significantly higher than it appears.
Sacrifice? Try surviving/living. It not nontrivial to find a job overseas, assuming that person can even deal with the cultural differences and language. Between living on the streets and living under "oppression" that you don't directly see, the choice is fairly obvious.
Exactly. The current amount of shit is acceptable, and you will choose it over poverty elsewhere.
But that even assume they can afford the plane flight in the first place.
You don't need a plane ticket to go to Canada or Mexico. Sure if you live in the central US it'll take a lot of time and effort but people much poorer have gone to greater lengths to flee places before. People manage to flee from Cuba to the US without catching a plane, I'm sure the other way would work too.
WIth many people living paycheck to paycheck, can't is literally can't.
And yet countless people have fled from murderous regimes before without even having a paycheck in the first place. In fact surely the less you have the easier it is abandon everything.
Many people can't afford to choose their jobs, and leases here in the US are NOT negotiable usually.
Leases are perfectly "negotiable", you can stay in a hotel on a daily basis. You can live in homeless shelters and under bridges.
Some people can't even manage to get passport.
People have managed to flee East Berlin (when there was a wall) and North Korea and so on. Places in which a passport is irrelevant since the men with guns won't let you leave anyway.
There is also the issue in that, there is NO place on earth that's perfect. You move out of state only to deal with a different set of problems, or worst, the same problems.
Of course. Which means the problems where you are aren't bad enough to provide enough incentive for you to leave.
Note, I'm not saying this is a good or a bad thing. I certainly haven't left the US so clearly I don't think the current level of shit justifies bailing out.
So the sacrifice isn't worth it to you. That just says that you will, in fact, put up with the current amount of shit.
Most likely there's some point at which it would be enough and you'd actually look into leaving - work out which places you can get a visa for, check job markets, arrange for shorter term leases, etc, etc.
At some further point you might be willing to just abandon all your stuff, overstay a tourist visa somewhere or work illegally on a non-work visa.
But clearly as of right now, you will put up with it.
When did I say you can't point something out? Answer: Never. I merely pointed out that criticism without offering alternative suggestions make you look like a bitchy dickhead, and I stand by that conclusion.
OK, without looking like a bitchy dick head then. Which should have been pretty obviously meant by "can't", since clearly a person can physically say something, it's the saying without being considered an arrogant prick or a bitchy dickhead or whatever insult you want to use next time.
Of course you find someone pointing out a logical problem with an argument as being arrogant and bitchy, you much prefer the "eye roll and/or derisive laughter" response. Since it's much less arrogant to assume the other person can't learn something if you point out a flaw in their logic and just laught at them.
Also, can you point out where the original post was fawning over how awesome they think themselves?
Your student loan is subsidized by the government. Your apartment loan has collateral.
The interest rate doesn't determine whether it is foolish to study, the total cost does. If paying tuition means a $5,000 loan at 8% it is more likely to be worth studying than if is means a $200,000 loan at 1%.
And 8% isn't a high interest rate, other than relative to recent obscenely low rates. When I started university the 30 year fixed rate mortgage rate was 9%, for example.
for the little guy who invented something, say a more efficient engine, to sue the huge corporation that just copies their invention.
Since if he loses he gets hit with 3x the costs of the defendant's super expensive lawyers if he happens to get an idiot jury or made some technical error somewhere.
I have a simpler solution - only grant patents for things that are actually inventions. "A button which when clicked buys the product for the user using the credit card they entered previously and the shipping address they entered previously" is not an invention, for eample.
So in order for me to point out that just because someone can't think of a reason doe something doesn't mean there isn't one they haven't thought of you require that I know one myself? That's a mightly strange restriction to have.
So if someone was to claim "I know P!=NP because I can't think of any reasons for P to equal NP", then nobody can reply with "Just because you can't think of any doesn't mean there isn't one" unless they also provide a proof that P=NP?
Must be really hard to communicate under the restrictions that exist in your world.
Really? You are amaingly out of touch with the modern world, or unobservant.
You're claiming you've never heard of a cell phone plan? Never mind the word "plan" is in in huge letters at the top of the link your sourced and they keep talking about not having contracts.
You're really so stupid that you think they'd emphasise "no contracts" if the entire industry had no contracts?
Wow, you've managed to increase the stupid level at slashdot, I didn't think that was possible.
How do you come to the conclusion that someone arguing against military spending is engaged in a Republican propaganda campaign?
There's also no difference being the USSR paying itself for military production and the USA paying companies. In both cases finite resources of economic production are being allocated to the military. The US government just borrows (with no intention of paying back) the money to pay those companies anyway - since it can print money for free it's not like that transfer of money means anything.
between lying for the company and lying to the company. Lying to the FCC is fine, sure if you get caught it's a PITA but there's some upside for the company when you aren't.
Lying to the company is a whole different beast.
It always funny when some fat cat loses their job because they lied on a resume decades ago and some how couldn't find a way to change their CV (and hope no one checks previous records - just remove the lies and leave it vague for a few years then add in the real details) so at least there's some upside for everyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
The road-rage incidence was a conviction under "causing death by criminal negligence" which has a maximum penalty of life in prison and a minimum of 0 (unless a gun is involved).
So does this idiot summary writer really think that a maximum of 10 years in prison is greater than a maximum of life in prison?
And yes people convicted for wearing a mask are also not going to get the maximum.
No, it's called Association Football as opposed to American Football or Rugby Football. Since those are rather long and tedious we tend to shorten them.
The English gave us soccer via slang : Association -> Assoc. -> soccer. Like Brekkers for breakfast and tener for ten pound note.
Obviously if one type dominates all the others in some area then "football" is going to be used for it.
Maybe look up what the FDA does and you'll educate yourself a little?
The FDA also regulates medical devices, radiation-emitting devices, cosmetics, vaccines, biologics, tobacco products, veterinary products, interstate travel sanitation, and probably a bunch of other things. All of which is mind numbingly obvious within 10 seconds of looking up the FDA.
The US runs a defecit, 34% of the budget is not 34% of the total US tax revenue. It is 54% of the tax revenue.
That's what the sentence you quoted said.
Which is significantly cheaper than the $80 per square foot it is being compared with.
The "scapegoats" job was to check the damn CV. He screwed up and clearly didn't bother doing his job. That'll get you sacked in most jobs.
Of course the CEO should go to, then again he's demonstrated he can deceive people which is probably a useful skill for getting investors to overvalue the company,
If someone has an 8% student loan I'm assuming it was taken out when interest rates where higher than they are now.
Though I also think that interest rates are not just too low compared with historic levels but also with respect to the where the market would put them.
By the link you describe that causes investments to underprice risk which in turn leads to investors taking more risks in order to get "reasonable" returns (basically how much capital you need to generate enough to live on). That gives you a financial system prone to collapse since the actual levels of risk being taken are significantly higher than it appears.
It wasn't thirty years ago - they were even higher back then.
Exactly. The current amount of shit is acceptable, and you will choose it over poverty elsewhere.
You don't need a plane ticket to go to Canada or Mexico. Sure if you live in the central US it'll take a lot of time and effort but people much poorer have gone to greater lengths to flee places before. People manage to flee from Cuba to the US without catching a plane, I'm sure the other way would work too.
And yet countless people have fled from murderous regimes before without even having a paycheck in the first place. In fact surely the less you have the easier it is abandon everything.
Leases are perfectly "negotiable", you can stay in a hotel on a daily basis. You can live in homeless shelters and under bridges.
People have managed to flee East Berlin (when there was a wall) and North Korea and so on. Places in which a passport is irrelevant since the men with guns won't let you leave anyway.
Of course. Which means the problems where you are aren't bad enough to provide enough incentive for you to leave.
Note, I'm not saying this is a good or a bad thing. I certainly haven't left the US so clearly I don't think the current level of shit justifies bailing out.
So the sacrifice isn't worth it to you. That just says that you will, in fact, put up with the current amount of shit.
Most likely there's some point at which it would be enough and you'd actually look into leaving - work out which places you can get a visa for, check job markets, arrange for shorter term leases, etc, etc.
At some further point you might be willing to just abandon all your stuff, overstay a tourist visa somewhere or work illegally on a non-work visa.
But clearly as of right now, you will put up with it.
If you were restricted to only viewing through the microscope I can see that being difficult.
If you buy that government bureaucracy will make more productive choices than the free market.
Which it very well might, but just assuming the conclusion doesn't really make for a compelling argument.
Sure but the claim was: " They're barely useable for browsing".
OK, without looking like a bitchy dick head then. Which should have been pretty obviously meant by "can't", since clearly a person can physically say something, it's the saying without being considered an arrogant prick or a bitchy dickhead or whatever insult you want to use next time.
Of course you find someone pointing out a logical problem with an argument as being arrogant and bitchy, you much prefer the "eye roll and/or derisive laughter" response. Since it's much less arrogant to assume the other person can't learn something if you point out a flaw in their logic and just laught at them.
Also, can you point out where the original post was fawning over how awesome they think themselves?
My first sentence has an "and" in it, maybe learn how to read. The bit of text specifying the author might be a good place to start.
Your student loan is subsidized by the government. Your apartment loan has collateral.
The interest rate doesn't determine whether it is foolish to study, the total cost does. If paying tuition means a $5,000 loan at 8% it is more likely to be worth studying than if is means a $200,000 loan at 1%.
And 8% isn't a high interest rate, other than relative to recent obscenely low rates. When I started university the 30 year fixed rate mortgage rate was 9%, for example.
for the little guy who invented something, say a more efficient engine, to sue the huge corporation that just copies their invention.
Since if he loses he gets hit with 3x the costs of the defendant's super expensive lawyers if he happens to get an idiot jury or made some technical error somewhere.
I have a simpler solution - only grant patents for things that are actually inventions. "A button which when clicked buys the product for the user using the credit card they entered previously and the shipping address they entered previously" is not an invention, for eample.
So in order for me to point out that just because someone can't think of a reason doe something doesn't mean there isn't one they haven't thought of you require that I know one myself? That's a mightly strange restriction to have.
So if someone was to claim "I know P!=NP because I can't think of any reasons for P to equal NP", then nobody can reply with "Just because you can't think of any doesn't mean there isn't one" unless they also provide a proof that P=NP?
Must be really hard to communicate under the restrictions that exist in your world.
It took 10 hours to type:
shampoo 12M
into google?
Really? You are amaingly out of touch with the modern world, or unobservant.
You're claiming you've never heard of a cell phone plan? Never mind the word "plan" is in in huge letters at the top of the link your sourced and they keep talking about not having contracts.
You're really so stupid that you think they'd emphasise "no contracts" if the entire industry had no contracts?
Wow, you've managed to increase the stupid level at slashdot, I didn't think that was possible.
If there is both water and it gets cold then you can get ice. Surely that was obvious???
How do you come to the conclusion that someone arguing against military spending is engaged in a Republican propaganda campaign?
There's also no difference being the USSR paying itself for military production and the USA paying companies. In both cases finite resources of economic production are being allocated to the military. The US government just borrows (with no intention of paying back) the money to pay those companies anyway - since it can print money for free it's not like that transfer of money means anything.
monopoly operating system?
Oh? Well then no it's completely different.
between lying for the company and lying to the company. Lying to the FCC is fine, sure if you get caught it's a PITA but there's some upside for the company when you aren't.
Lying to the company is a whole different beast.
It always funny when some fat cat loses their job because they lied on a resume decades ago and some how couldn't find a way to change their CV (and hope no one checks previous records - just remove the lies and leave it vague for a few years then add in the real details) so at least there's some upside for everyone else.