If you knew how clinical trials worked you'd understand what a phase I trial is and isn't, but apparently you'd rather just call BS and remain ignorant.
You have a very strange idea of what "selling" is.
And that isn't what it really means. What it really means "Vote for me and I'll take those other people's money and give it to you". Which according to the principles a free market economy is based on is exactly what you would expect people to do.
Those other people could be future citizens or they could be richer people or they could be poorer people or just people with a different set of hobbies than you.
Democrats don't like voter ID laws, because they feel (with some justification) that their base is less likely to have ID and more likely to be burdened by the process of obtaining it. I'm not sure what the solution is, but we need something that's more secure than what's currently in place across much of the country.
Why?
Is there any evidence it's been a serious problem - more serious than other issues and more serious than the impact of making votiung more difficult?
Is it easy to exploit in an undetected fashion (so it might be a serious problem without anyone knowing)? Given the system you described I wouldn't think so, you'd notice names being crossed off multiple times and then standard police work to determine "who dun it" and a revote if it could have made a difference (though America does have issues with those given the way their system works).
Yes you want as secure a voting system as possible. But denying someone a vote who is qualified to vote is just as bad as letting someone else vote twice so trading one off against the other only makes sense if there's a net win (a system that fixes one without impacting the other would be best of course, but I haven't seen one).
Since they can't see whom you voted for how can they intimidate you into voting a certain way? I guess they could intimidate you into not voting, but I would suspect they'd get moved along if they tried that in anywhere except the poor inner city and hence are only reducing democrat votes.
The "fixed that for you" was fixing it. From "Apple has to pay for developing their own OS compared with Amazon just adding things to Android" to "Apple just added things to FeeBSD just like Amazon just added things to Android".
But sure if you expect bitterness it's easy enough to find it there.
The original claim was "It costs big bucks to develop and maintain your own OS" and "yes, I know Kindle is not pure Android, but it's built on top of it".
Responding that that "own OS" was built on top of an existing OS seems far more like pointing out that the distinction isn't as large as was being made out rather than bitterness towards Apple. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant for this tangent.
Note, there was no mention of things being offered or not offered in return by either Amazon or by Apple. There was no mention of either of them doing anything wrong by using existing software. There was no mention of licensing. There was no mention of a problem. So where is this bitterness you claim is so distinct?
He's nineteen. Surely it's a no brainer to sell, lock in the millions and tuck them away. Just interest on them will give you a middle class income. And then you can try it all over on another business venture. Since you did it before without having those millions tucked away you can pretend they don't exist and not put them at risk. If you succeed a second time then you have more confidence it wasn't just right place, right time luck and can take the more risky options of not selling out to the first highish bidder. If it then falls apart, you have that middle class income anyway.
It certainly doesn't sound like a product/company I'd want to bet millions on - things change too fast in tech and are too easy to replicate.
Going pretty much worst case, we assume it's all income counted in one year - rather than being classed as capital gains or spread over more than a year and that he resides somewhere with a state income tax so that 50% goes in taxes. So 2.5 million is left.
It's just about the worst possible time for trying to live off of fixed income (the fed is trying to keep interest rates at 0%) but even so...
Now I don't think interest rates are going to stay at their low levels for the next 30 years I wouldn't actually do this if I had $2.5 million, but if things stay as they are now forever more:
30 year treasuries pay 2.9% http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield. They pay every 6 months and it's taxable income federally but not taxable at the state and local level. So you buy $2500000 worth of 30 year bonds and you will be getting paid $72,500 per year in interest. Sure that's taxable, but an income of $72,500 puts you in the top 12% of income earners in the US. And of course that's just your interest you have $2.5 million in those treasuries so you don't need to be saving for retirement making that income a little higher relative to those who do.
So just how rich are you that you consider people earning over $70,000 per year (individual not family) to be poor enough that they have to live a "very prudent" life?
They pop up on my comments page, and I click to see if there's an interesting/funny/whatever reply. At that point I don't even know what the story was let alone the post I originally replied to.
Except that isn't the goal. But sure if you want to require everyone to start at step one then go ahead. Personally I don't really mind if the guy who writes the software I use doesn't know how solder or how to read resister color codes, since I don't expect everyone to start from scratch but actually prefer it when they focus on their areas of interest/strength.
Not when the emergency involves a hurricane knocking over trees which then fall on and break those twisted-pair lines. Then a cell phone is going to have a better chance of getting to 911.
If you do not trust the privacy policy of any web site, then when you provided your e-mail address to Slashdot when creating the "nedlohs" account, what made you think Slashdot wasn't going to sell your e-mail address to spammers?
I used an email I only use for signing up for such things and never actually read (well other than to look for a password reset email when I forget a password).
What criteria would you use to determine the trustworthiness of a relatively new web site if a product that you want is available for sale only from that site, such as directly from the manufacturer
I tend to do a quick search for scam reports and then take the risk. Credit cards are disposable anyway.
Do you trust that an online shopping site won't hand your credit card number to people who would abuse your identity?
Not really, that is after all why I use a credit card that for which charges are easily disputed and numbers easily changed. And why I buy things from sites that haven't done such things in the past over new sites if the prices aren't too much higher.
To avoid being investigated, tried, and convicted of fraud.
Because "Used to submit high scores" is so legally binding, you could never say include an identifier to track the high score as well as the score itself without going to jail.
You have the reasoning completely wrong, so it isn't surprising it doesn't make sense.
The idea is that say you are a business owner on a huge income. You could employ an additional worker, doing so would generate some extra revenue and profit via the extra production they generate. However, it's possible you won't be able to use the extra production for a number of reasons (demand tanks for some reason, for example) but you still have to pay the wages of that new person for a time. There's also just the extra work in managing a larger enterprise.
So you have a standard risk/reward situation. The higher your marginal tax rate the less of the reward you get and hence the lower the risk level you will not employ that extra person.
That doesn't mean it actually happens in reality, but logically it makes sense.
Wow, that is a retarded question. Arctic ice doesn't block the damn jetstream. A millisecond of thinking, which I realise is a stretch for you, should tell you that the ice is at just a tad lower altitude.
Temperatute changes on the other hand change the relative temperature difference between the pole and the equator, and that probably does have an impact on the jetstream. It's only an hypothesis but what they are thinking is that the higher temperature pole sees the causes the jetstream to be in a different position than previously when the pole had a lower temperature. Record high levels of ice would probably indicate a colder than normal pole, that would also impact the jetstream if there hypothesis is right.
Slashdot Mirror
Really laws related to health care are the worst ones you can think of?
If you knew how clinical trials worked you'd understand what a phase I trial is and isn't, but apparently you'd rather just call BS and remain ignorant.
You have a very strange idea of what "selling" is.
And that isn't what it really means. What it really means "Vote for me and I'll take those other people's money and give it to you". Which according to the principles a free market economy is based on is exactly what you would expect people to do.
Those other people could be future citizens or they could be richer people or they could be poorer people or just people with a different set of hobbies than you.
Why?
Is there any evidence it's been a serious problem - more serious than other issues and more serious than the impact of making votiung more difficult?
Is it easy to exploit in an undetected fashion (so it might be a serious problem without anyone knowing)? Given the system you described I wouldn't think so, you'd notice names being crossed off multiple times and then standard police work to determine "who dun it" and a revote if it could have made a difference (though America does have issues with those given the way their system works).
Yes you want as secure a voting system as possible. But denying someone a vote who is qualified to vote is just as bad as letting someone else vote twice so trading one off against the other only makes sense if there's a net win (a system that fixes one without impacting the other would be best of course, but I haven't seen one).
Since they can't see whom you voted for how can they intimidate you into voting a certain way? I guess they could intimidate you into not voting, but I would suspect they'd get moved along if they tried that in anywhere except the poor inner city and hence are only reducing democrat votes.
The "fixed that for you" was fixing it. From "Apple has to pay for developing their own OS compared with Amazon just adding things to Android" to "Apple just added things to FeeBSD just like Amazon just added things to Android".
But sure if you expect bitterness it's easy enough to find it there.
You have a strange sense of smell.
The original claim was "It costs big bucks to develop and maintain your own OS" and "yes, I know Kindle is not pure Android, but it's built on top of it".
Responding that that "own OS" was built on top of an existing OS seems far more like pointing out that the distinction isn't as large as was being made out rather than bitterness towards Apple. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant for this tangent.
Note, there was no mention of things being offered or not offered in return by either Amazon or by Apple. There was no mention of either of them doing anything wrong by using existing software. There was no mention of licensing. There was no mention of a problem. So where is this bitterness you claim is so distinct?
He's nineteen. Surely it's a no brainer to sell, lock in the millions and tuck them away. Just interest on them will give you a middle class income. And then you can try it all over on another business venture. Since you did it before without having those millions tucked away you can pretend they don't exist and not put them at risk. If you succeed a second time then you have more confidence it wasn't just right place, right time luck and can take the more risky options of not selling out to the first highish bidder. If it then falls apart, you have that middle class income anyway.
It certainly doesn't sound like a product/company I'd want to bet millions on - things change too fast in tech and are too easy to replicate.
Going pretty much worst case, we assume it's all income counted in one year - rather than being classed as capital gains or spread over more than a year and that he resides somewhere with a state income tax so that 50% goes in taxes. So 2.5 million is left.
It's just about the worst possible time for trying to live off of fixed income (the fed is trying to keep interest rates at 0%) but even so...
Now I don't think interest rates are going to stay at their low levels for the next 30 years I wouldn't actually do this if I had $2.5 million, but if things stay as they are now forever more:
30 year treasuries pay 2.9% http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield. They pay every 6 months and it's taxable income federally but not taxable at the state and local level. So you buy $2500000 worth of 30 year bonds and you will be getting paid $72,500 per year in interest. Sure that's taxable, but an income of $72,500 puts you in the top 12% of income earners in the US. And of course that's just your interest you have $2.5 million in those treasuries so you don't need to be saving for retirement making that income a little higher relative to those who do.
So just how rich are you that you consider people earning over $70,000 per year (individual not family) to be poor enough that they have to live a "very prudent" life?
No one said it was a problem.
I'm not sure why you find that interesting?
They pop up on my comments page, and I click to see if there's an interesting/funny/whatever reply. At that point I don't even know what the story was let alone the post I originally replied to.
But feel free to remain interested.
I guess you could try reading the article for their reasons and how most of them don't apply to Google. But that would be effort.
Whereas I cannot think of a single reason to read past the first line, let alone all the way to the last sentence.
Except that isn't the goal. But sure if you want to require everyone to start at step one then go ahead. Personally I don't really mind if the guy who writes the software I use doesn't know how solder or how to read resister color codes, since I don't expect everyone to start from scratch but actually prefer it when they focus on their areas of interest/strength.
Not when the emergency involves a hurricane knocking over trees which then fall on and break those twisted-pair lines. Then a cell phone is going to have a better chance of getting to 911.
Personally I'll take having food over having written down some rules.
Feeding your members is much easier when you have a tractor. Housing your members is much easier when you have a table saw and a brick press,.
You are a special kind of stupid.
How is this any different from postal votes? Who cares if it's sent via email or via the post.
I guess email is more easily intercepted and the contents changed, but standard post isn't immune form that either.
I used an email I only use for signing up for such things and never actually read (well other than to look for a password reset email when I forget a password).
I tend to do a quick search for scam reports and then take the risk. Credit cards are disposable anyway.
Of course not.
Not really, that is after all why I use a credit card that for which charges are easily disputed and numbers easily changed. And why I buy things from sites that haven't done such things in the past over new sites if the prices aren't too much higher.
Because "Used to submit high scores" is so legally binding, you could never say include an identifier to track the high score as well as the score itself without going to jail.
You have the reasoning completely wrong, so it isn't surprising it doesn't make sense.
The idea is that say you are a business owner on a huge income. You could employ an additional worker, doing so would generate some extra revenue and profit via the extra production they generate. However, it's possible you won't be able to use the extra production for a number of reasons (demand tanks for some reason, for example) but you still have to pay the wages of that new person for a time. There's also just the extra work in managing a larger enterprise.
So you have a standard risk/reward situation. The higher your marginal tax rate the less of the reward you get and hence the lower the risk level you will not employ that extra person.
That doesn't mean it actually happens in reality, but logically it makes sense.
You've never used a touch screen ATM in which the you had to press not quite where the button were rendered?
Never calibrated a palm pilot?
Get off my dam lawn!
Because you should just trust what the ap says? Why would a developer lie after all.
Wow, that is a retarded question. Arctic ice doesn't block the damn jetstream. A millisecond of thinking, which I realise is a stretch for you, should tell you that the ice is at just a tad lower altitude.
Temperatute changes on the other hand change the relative temperature difference between the pole and the equator, and that probably does have an impact on the jetstream. It's only an hypothesis but what they are thinking is that the higher temperature pole sees the causes the jetstream to be in a different position than previously when the pole had a lower temperature. Record high levels of ice would probably indicate a colder than normal pole, that would also impact the jetstream if there hypothesis is right.