Go and read up on Quaker theology? Though I'm not sure axioms and logic are always the driving force of religious beliefs.
People are equal -> People should pay the same price for the same thing, doesn't seem like a huge stretch.
1. Lying is wrong 2. Encouraging others to do wrong is wrong. 3. Haggling encourages people to lie in order to get a better price. therefore, haggling with customers is wrong.
So your assertion that parent's post stating that the 9/10ths has "been a function of gasoline taxes forever...." was "absurd" and "false" doesn't really hold water, now does it?
No it still sounds absurd and false. None of that is evidence that a PA governor raised gas taxes by.9 cents in order to not break a promise to not raise the 1 cent. After all it's the wrong decade, it's the wrong government, and it's the wrong motivation - none of it supports the absurd and false claim.
80% of those "costs to the taxpayer" are the monopoly on mailbox delivery. Which actually costs the government $0 - it costs society via reduced competition, but the topic is cost to the government
Nice to start your quote on the line after the statement from Zuckerberg acknowledging the existence of such profiles. He of course obfuscated as much as possible with the red herring of security.
All he denied was being familiar with them being called "shadow profiles" (which does seem a rather unlikely name for them to be called internally) and knowing how many data points they have on average.
Who gives actual true answers to those security questions anyway?
In which case who cares if some equally stupid online survey does get real answers. To things that are usually trivially findable anyway - it's not like I keep what my first car was secret. My parents are divorced, my mother's maiden name isn't exactly rocket science to find out and I don't think she's so ashamed of me as to keep her mother status secret...
"Fixed costs" and "lower fixed rate" are two completely different and completely unrelated things. That you think they are the same show how little understanding you have of all of this.
There's no need, You just tap off. The card balance goes negative but it doesn't stop you from leaving.
If you are feeling charitable you can then top up the card at your leisure. If you have better use for your money than the government then you just throw the card in the bin and get a new one for free (well for $X with a $X balance).
GIven you can just have the balance go negative when you tap off the entire article makes no sense at all.
Last time I was in Oz the opal card went in the bin when I got to the airport since it was at about $-10, and who would pay $10 to get the balance to 0 when you can just pay $10 for a new $10 balance card...
Dashcams tend to expose for the light and make things in darkness less visible than they are to human eye.
But even ignoreing that the pedestrian was in the traffic lane when the headlights reached them - they didn't step into the headlights out of darkness from the side. So a human could have stopped in time assuming they were driving at a safe speed and hence didn't have their stopping distance out past their view distance. If you can't stop in that situation you are driving too fast for the conditions.
The claim was "Pedestrians ALWAYS have right-a-way over cars".. I only need one location and one specific set of criteria in which pedestrians do not have right of way to show the claim as false.
That pedestrians often have right of way is irrelevant. That you can't just ignore and hit those who don't have right of way is irrelevant.
What vehicles can or can not do is completely irrelevant. What vehicles should and shouldn't do is completely irrelevant.
A single claim was made. That claim is "Pedestrians ALWAYS have right-a-way over cars".
That quoted law says " Every pedestrian... [a bunch of cases here ].... shall yield the right of way".
It doesn't matter what the [a bunch of cases] actually are just that they exist. It doesn't matter where that law is valid (state of GA) just that it is valid somewhere.
"ALL" claims are simply disproved with a single counter-example - I'm pretty sure they still teach that in school.
You could think about it for ten seconds? Or you could read the article?
Ultimately, the PSC decided that municipal power authorities will be allowed to increase rates for customers whose maximum demand exceeds 300kW or whose load density "exceeds 250kWh per square foot per year."
If your bakery does that then you get the higher rates. If your crypto mining doesn't then you don't.
(a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway unless he has already, and under safe conditions, entered the roadway. - https://law.justia.com/codes/g...
And of course the thousands of laws and ordinances stating that pedestrians have right of way on marked and unmarked crossings which would be pointless if pedestrians always had right of way.
So you think the power company can create arbitrary amounts of electricity on a whim? Rather than having a maximum generation capacity before they would have to source power from other providers?
You've never heard of overage charges in which you pay extra when you use more than a pre-agreed limit on something? DO you not know what the word "budget" means maybe?
I can't fathom how someone could live in the modern world and never have come across these concepts.
My water bill, my cell phone bill, my electricity bill, and my colocation network bill, sending a package with fedex all use similar structures.
So do that. Of course, India is party to the same treaty and would likely come under international pressure to live up to that treaty and enforce similar rules anyway if it was more than a one off.
Do people really not use -Wall -Werror (or equivalent) by default? Aside from stuff being put on github which apparenrtly has a requirement to spew megabytes of warnings when compiling...
Slashdot Mirror
Go and read up on Quaker theology? Though I'm not sure axioms and logic are always the driving force of religious beliefs.
People are equal -> People should pay the same price for the same thing, doesn't seem like a huge stretch.
1. Lying is wrong
2. Encouraging others to do wrong is wrong.
3. Haggling encourages people to lie in order to get a better price.
therefore, haggling with customers is wrong.
Also seems like not a huge stretch.
No it still sounds absurd and false. None of that is evidence that a PA governor raised gas taxes by .9 cents in order to not break a promise to not raise the 1 cent. After all it's the wrong decade, it's the wrong government, and it's the wrong motivation - none of it supports the absurd and false claim.
Is there a single statement there that you didn't just make up?
80% of those "costs to the taxpayer" are the monopoly on mailbox delivery. Which actually costs the government $0 - it costs society via reduced competition, but the topic is cost to the government
Nice to start your quote on the line after the statement from Zuckerberg acknowledging the existence of such profiles. He of course obfuscated as much as possible with the red herring of security.
All he denied was being familiar with them being called "shadow profiles" (which does seem a rather unlikely name for them to be called internally) and knowing how many data points they have on average.
Who gives actual true answers to those security questions anyway?
In which case who cares if some equally stupid online survey does get real answers. To things that are usually trivially findable anyway - it's not like I keep what my first car was secret. My parents are divorced, my mother's maiden name isn't exactly rocket science to find out and I don't think she's so ashamed of me as to keep her mother status secret...
"since elementary, if not middle school" isn't the typical English idiom supposed to be "X, if not Y" supposed to have Y as the more "extreme" case?
"good, if not great", "injured, if not dead", etc?
But not all seeds are beans, for example, the coffee bean is a seed but not a bean.
"Fixed costs" and "lower fixed rate" are two completely different and completely unrelated things. That you think they are the same show how little understanding you have of all of this.
Your menory it terrible, Might want to go see a geriatrician for one of those Alzheimer's checks.
There's no need, You just tap off. The card balance goes negative but it doesn't stop you from leaving.
If you are feeling charitable you can then top up the card at your leisure. If you have better use for your money than the government then you just throw the card in the bin and get a new one for free (well for $X with a $X balance).
Article writer was just an idiot apparently.
Some stations don't have gates. Most stations in fact.
GIven you can just have the balance go negative when you tap off the entire article makes no sense at all.
Last time I was in Oz the opal card went in the bin when I got to the airport since it was at about $-10, and who would pay $10 to get the balance to 0 when you can just pay $10 for a new $10 balance card...
Which part of the article makes you think they are arguing that the pedestrian couldn't have avoided the crash?
Dashcams tend to expose for the light and make things in darkness less visible than they are to human eye.
But even ignoreing that the pedestrian was in the traffic lane when the headlights reached them - they didn't step into the headlights out of darkness from the side. So a human could have stopped in time assuming they were driving at a safe speed and hence didn't have their stopping distance out past their view distance. If you can't stop in that situation you are driving too fast for the conditions.
That's irrelevant to the claim in question, so why?
The claim was "Pedestrians ALWAYS have right-a-way over cars".. I only need one location and one specific set of criteria in which pedestrians do not have right of way to show the claim as false.
That pedestrians often have right of way is irrelevant. That you can't just ignore and hit those who don't have right of way is irrelevant.
What vehicles can or can not do is completely irrelevant. What vehicles should and shouldn't do is completely irrelevant.
A single claim was made. That claim is "Pedestrians ALWAYS have right-a-way over cars".
That quoted law says " Every pedestrian ... [a bunch of cases here ] .... shall yield the right of way".
It doesn't matter what the [a bunch of cases] actually are just that they exist. It doesn't matter where that law is valid (state of GA) just that it is valid somewhere.
"ALL" claims are simply disproved with a single counter-example - I'm pretty sure they still teach that in school.
You could think about it for ten seconds? Or you could read the article?
If your bakery does that then you get the higher rates. If your crypto mining doesn't then you don't.
(a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway unless he has already, and under safe conditions, entered the roadway. - https://law.justia.com/codes/g...
And of course the thousands of laws and ordinances stating that pedestrians have right of way on marked and unmarked crossings which would be pointless if pedestrians always had right of way.
So you think the power company can create arbitrary amounts of electricity on a whim? Rather than having a maximum generation capacity before they would have to source power from other providers?
You've never heard of overage charges in which you pay extra when you use more than a pre-agreed limit on something? DO you not know what the word "budget" means maybe?
I can't fathom how someone could live in the modern world and never have come across these concepts.
My water bill, my cell phone bill, my electricity bill, and my colocation network bill, sending a package with fedex all use similar structures.
Ford's market cap is $43.61B, General Motor's market cap is $52.80B. One is 83% of the size of the other.
AMD's market cap is $10.94B. Intel's' market cap is $239.19B. On is 5% of the size of the other.
Those are nothing like similar.
So do that. Of course, India is party to the same treaty and would likely come under international pressure to live up to that treaty and enforce similar rules anyway if it was more than a one off.
And by US entities. Swarm is free to disband in the US and incorporate and operate entirely out of India if they want of course.
Do people really not use -Wall -Werror (or equivalent) by default? Aside from stuff being put on github which apparenrtly has a requirement to spew megabytes of warnings when compiling...