Yes this IS a self-referencing double post, but when I saw a comment by you directly in the thread (after I posted) I figured I might as well address you directly.
Don't respond by trying to defend your existing work, respond by improving your work.
The primary effectiveness of coffee comes from the stimulant properties of caffeine (take a couple of shots from an inhaler in close proximity with coffee and you'll notice that the stimulant effects of both compound for an unpleasant jittery effect).
HOWEVER the bitter vapors may very well increase the effectiveness.
I'm not surprised by this at all, based on decades of experience with bronchial problems.
Things I've noticed: Cinnamon tends to have a soothing effect; particularly a "tea" of cinnamon with a shot of whiskey for good measure
hanging my head over a steaming bowl of water seems to help, tossing in fragrant spices seems to help more
Certain things do create a "content based sensation" in the lungs when inhaled; fragrant steams and inhalers themselves come to mind. (I've always had the weirdest feeling of being able to taste cold air, when it gets down a little below freezing I experience a smoky sensation that doesn't seem to come from anywhere in particular)
Production quality
on
Iron Baby
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
ok so it IS a joke without a punchline and another weird-baby thing... but this is not a baby's face plastered on existing scenes.
It's evolution in the same sense that dead and decaying humans smell so terrible: it's a warning of danger. Perhaps I should be more specific: it is not evolution itself, but rather a product of it.
Well thank Darwin that humans evolved a bad smell after they die!
and yes I am being exceptionally pedantic about this; but Ive gotten tired of people who quote beliefs without understanding what they're saying; at that point it's just another form of religion.
I'd just like to know how you "barely" have a "significant increase"....
Not a biologist..... but, If an immune response to other stimuli causes a increase somewhere between X and Z then a "significant increase" is one that either falls within that range or at least approaches it.
So if the increase reaches X.01 it has matched the "significant" criteria, but just barely.
like I said, not a biologist, but semantically speaking that's what the statement means.
I think we have a word that already accounts for that: evolution.
You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
"Origin of life" debates aside the "body will boost its immunity when it detects a possible disease threat" is an example of a system, not of an evolution.
Unless you are trying to imply that transforming to a different developmental stage by producing more IL-6, which would be sort of like saying that trees are evolving every time they produce leaves.
Words mean things, and meanings are important.
btw: I wouldn't be bothering to point this out... but someone already beat me to the more obvious flaw in your comment.
Having BEEN in the situation myself, I can tell you that switching to neutral was the LAST thing I thought of. When you're sitting minding your own business at a red light and suddenly your car flares to life doing 60 mph in a couple of seconds, You're really much more focused on trying to stop the car, not the transfer of power from the engine through the transmission.
On a sidenote: Cutting power to the engine is ALSO a bad idea, at least if you happen to have power steering. Or so I discovered.
Glad you survived.
Having had many old as crap cars I've experienced the opposite, when you're going at speed on the highway and suddenly your brake cable snaps your first response better be to control the car through the transmission... otherwise your life ends as someone else's bumpersticker.
Like a lot of emergencies when it hits the fan all you've got to get you through is your past experience. I'd always say that someone should have "driving a standard" in their past experience.
If this turns out to be a double post sorry.... it looks like/. somehow ate my first one
I find all sorts of business practices immoral and unacceptable... however no government anyway has passed a law against them.
Being philosophically evil is a standard business practice, and some (such as myself) might argue that capitalism as it exists rewards such evil. But the fact that something is clearly WRONG does not make it ILLEGAL.
Take your hypothetical flour example, there are no Anti-competitive practices described:
He has not colluded with competitors. He is not preventing entry of anyone into the market. His supplier is not contractually bound to deal only with him (or even with him at all). He is doing the opposite of dumping. His current position seems like a monopoly, but the presence of monopolistic circumstance is not illegal (particularly in short term situations); what is illegal is preventing competition from occurring.
and further more he is not even a monopoly.... Why? Which governmental body has jurisdiction? The Country or State? The $5 reseller is not the only person to sell flour within their jurisdiction so he is not engaged in a monopoly.
You have a lot of anger and frustration... this is good. But only if you do something with it; and it has to be the right thing. Yelling "That's illegal" when something is not illegal is not the right thing. Either work towards changing "legal" to be more representative of "fair", or educate others.
Before you can do any of this you must educate yourself.
i find it hard to believe so many of you think this is fair or legal or acceptable on any moral, legal, or philosophical basis
Since you seem to not be reading what anyone says, this is the last reply I will make.
I find all sorts of business practices immoral and unacceptable... however no government anyway has passed a law against them.
Being philosophically evil is a standard business practice, and some (such as myself) might argue that capitalism as it exists rewards such evil. But the fact that something is clearly WRONG does not make it ILLEGAL.
Take your hypothetical flour example, there are no Anti-competitive practices described:
He has not colluded with competitors. He is not preventing entry of anyone into the market. His supplier is not contractually bound to deal only with him (or even with him at all). He is doing the opposite of dumping. His current position seems like a monopoly, but the presence of monopolistic circumstance is not illegal (particularly in short term situations); what is illegal is preventing competition from occurring.
and further more he is not even a monopoly.... Why? Which governmental body has jurisdiction? The Country or State? The $5 reseller is not the only person to sell flour within their jurisdiction so he is not engaged in a monopoly.
You have a lot of anger and frustration... this is good. But only if you do something with it; and it has to be the right thing. Yelling "That's illegal" when something is not illegal is not the right thing. Either work towards changing "legal" to be more representative of "fair", or educate others.
Before you can do any of this you must educate yourself.
Requiring every ticket holder to have a valid ID to attend a concert would block such children from attending. That would work for Tom Waits but not for any of several acts that are popular with preteens, such as the Jonas Brothers or Miley Cyrus.
every sunday a guy shows up with 20 bags of flour. the townspeople line up and buy the flour from the guy, $2/ a bag
one sunday, this asshole shows up really early, buys all 20 bags for $40, turns around and faces the townsfolk and says "ok, that will be $5 a bag from each of you"
understand the illegality yet?
Ummm..... NO.
That is not illegal. Greedy? yes. Unethical? yes. Parasitic? yes. But not illegal, it's not even a monopoly; and as many people are going to observe it is "the American dream" to buy something, do nothing, and double your investment.
What (in theory) is illegal here are potential allegations of impersonation, wire fraud, and unauthorized access.
Now if you have an idea of how to remove parasites from the market place then I'm all ears, but pretending that capitalism is illegal is not the same as fixing capitalism.
p.s. by "fixing capitalism" I mean either: "Making it work for the good of all" or "Cutting it's balls off so it stops breeding".
Yeah, like monkeys need pants. Haven't we had enough of you-hide-it-we-find-it accounting? The cost of this work should be realized when the funds are spent, not in some theoretical future when the benefits of FOSS may come back to the roost. Why? Because the primary benefit of FOSS is the avoidance of those costs in the future. To handle it otherwise would be double counting the benefit.
I don't think you are quite grasping the concept of "intangible asset" in this context. It doesn't refer to "financial products" or other forms of speculation on the commodities market.
Intangible assets are intellectual properties; such as trademarks, patents, copyrights, possibly even software licenses. They are intangible because their value cannot be assessed by the paper they are printed on.
Whatever our views of the current IP system, most people would agree that Intangible assets often have a value beyond the actual costs of creation.
Currently a company can claim the same deduction for contributing toward an FOSS as they can for in house software... the wages of their employees. If FOSS contributions could be treated as an asset donated toward a charitable organization then things like the market value and basis come into play; under very common circumstances these will create a higher deduction.
so, in summary.... if you have problems with corporatism, capitalism, or the legal system; please learn to state it coherently and have some idea what subject is being discussed.
Which strangely uses the exact example of donating electrical work to a church...
Yes and no... This article relates to a discussion of translating time and effort into an asset.
Services and Time are not deductible... Assets are.
Think about it this way if you develop some ingenious recording/broadcasting device for your church you can claim your actual expenses as a donation. However if you create this device and patent it you have now created an asset. If you then donate the patent to your church you are no longer restricted to the same set of expenses.
IRS Pub 526 states: Patents and Other Intellectual Property
If you donate a patent or other intellectual property to a qualified organization, your deduction is limited to the basis of the property or the fair market value of the property, whichever is less. Intellectual property means any of the following:
* Patents.
* Copyrights (other than a copyright described in Internal Revenue Code sections 1221(a)(3) or 1231(b)(1)(C)).
* Trademarks.
* Trade names.
* Trade secrets.
* Know-how.
* Software (other than software described in Internal Revenue Code section 197(e)(3)(A)(i)).
* Other similar property or applications or registrations of such property.
A lot of how this applies to you will depend on whether you are an individual or a corporation (a corporation will have methods of assigning a much higher basis, and of course on the quality of your professional advice.
The cost estimation is not of itself important, but it is an important means to and end: that commons-based innovation must receive a higher level of official recognition that would set it as an alternative to decision-makers. Ideally, legal and regulatory framework must allow companies participating on commons-based R&D to generate intangible assets for their contribution to successful projects. Otherwise, expenses must have an equitable tax treatment as a donation to social welfare."
Can someone decode this for me?
Do they want to tax companies that sponsor F/OSS development? Or subsidize them? Or do they want the flexibility to do both, and will change their mind depending on which company and which year we're talking about?
Normally, my in-built translation apparatus resolves "Social Welfare" as "unethical extortion of wealth via the threat of state violence". But that's perhaps just my American perspective..
In the US there are several very deeply entrenched political biases against the responsibility of the individual to society... so yes your background influences how you are taking both the words "social" and "welfare".
Try reading it this way instead; "Developing commons-based software contribute towards improving the standard of living in a very real way. Most tax entities provide for tax deductions of goods and services to charitable organizations. If FOSS development was given the same tax-reducing benefit that donations to religious and political organizations have, this would greatly foster (and to an extent subsidize) corporate interest in creating, contributing, and releasing commons-based software."
If such development contributions can become "intangible assets" (things that have value but not a price tag), then they can be "donated" to a charitable non-profit. The non-profit then assesses a value for the donation, and this amount now becomes tax deductible to the company.
Since this wasn't clear I'm just guessing that "intangible assets", "equitable tax treatment", and "donation" are the real things that you didn't understand... and "social welfare" was just the political trigger that you focused on. If you genuinely want to learn the complexity of taxes, capitalism, freedom, and responsibility; I'd recommend you change where you get your news from.
p.s. As a personal recommendation; if you're able to disarm your "political triggers" try NPR instead of the usual network ratings whores. You'll learn a lot rather than be told a lot.
I personally have no problem with referring to risque-pics as "degrading toward ugly women"....of course ugly women have as much political power these days as "middle aged white male executives"; so to remain in a position like apple means bowing to the opinions or people who read either "Fortune" or "Sexless Hag" magazine. (maybe both)
I'm wondering the same thing myself. I use Sumatra instead which is a far more stripped down reader. My instincts tell me that I'm safer because it doesn't have all of the integration (java etc) but I'd love to see some comparisons.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes this IS a self-referencing double post, but when I saw a comment by you directly in the thread (after I posted) I figured I might as well address you directly.
Don't respond by trying to defend your existing work, respond by improving your work.
In fact this whole event could be a great source of inspiration. Imagine a large yellow © navigating through mazes.
Super IPa©
"Instructions: Inspired by arcade classics and based on corporate greed! You control IPa© (Intellectual Property & Copyright).
The aim is to eat all the $ in the maze, while avoiding four Independent Programmers. There are [DMCA] power-pills available in each corner which temporarily turn the Independent Programmers into Frightened Infringers. Chase them down and devour them! Constitutions also appear and can be eaten for additional points.
Thank you to Bamco Nandai for the back story and to Rambler for the satire."
ps. if anyone actually wants to take this idea I hereby give full concept ownership to the public domain, and all who fly the pirate flag.
| ©X
|
|
There's a lot of good advice all over this page about originality that both can protect a developer legally and just make for a better quality.
In fact this whole event could be a great source of inspiration. Imagine a large yellow © navigating through mazes.
Super IPa©
"Instructions: Inspired by arcade classics and based on corporate greed! You control IPa© (Intellectual Property & Copyright).
The aim is to eat all the $ in the maze, while avoiding four Independent Programmers. There are [DMCA] power-pills available in each corner which temporarily turn the Independent Programmers into Frightened Infringers. Chase them down and devour them! Constitutions also appear and can be eaten for additional points.
Thank you to Bamco Nandai for the back story and to Rambler for the satire."
ps. if anyone actually wants to take this idea I hereby give full concept ownership to the public domain, and all who fly the pirate flag.
| ©X
|
|
The primary effectiveness of coffee comes from the stimulant properties of caffeine (take a couple of shots from an inhaler in close proximity with coffee and you'll notice that the stimulant effects of both compound for an unpleasant jittery effect).
HOWEVER the bitter vapors may very well increase the effectiveness.
I'm not surprised by this at all, based on decades of experience with bronchial problems.
Things I've noticed:
Cinnamon tends to have a soothing effect; particularly a "tea" of cinnamon with a shot of whiskey for good measure
hanging my head over a steaming bowl of water seems to help, tossing in fragrant spices seems to help more
Certain things do create a "content based sensation" in the lungs when inhaled; fragrant steams and inhalers themselves come to mind. (I've always had the weirdest feeling of being able to taste cold air, when it gets down a little below freezing I experience a smoky sensation that doesn't seem to come from anywhere in particular)
ok so it IS a joke without a punchline and another weird-baby thing... but this is not a baby's face plastered on existing scenes.
This is very impressive production quality.
I'm the type of guy who at this point says "BobMcD" said it best.
It's evolution in the same sense that dead and decaying humans smell so terrible: it's a warning of danger. Perhaps I should be more specific: it is not evolution itself, but rather a product of it.
Well thank Darwin that humans evolved a bad smell after they die!
and yes I am being exceptionally pedantic about this; but Ive gotten tired of people who quote beliefs without understanding what they're saying; at that point it's just another form of religion.
I'd just like to know how you "barely" have a "significant increase"....
Not a biologist.....
but, If an immune response to other stimuli causes a increase somewhere between X and Z then a "significant increase" is one that either falls within that range or at least approaches it.
So if the increase reaches X.01 it has matched the "significant" criteria, but just barely.
like I said, not a biologist, but semantically speaking that's what the statement means.
I think we have a word that already accounts for that: evolution.
You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
"Origin of life" debates aside the "body will boost its immunity when it detects a possible disease threat" is an example of a system, not of an evolution.
Unless you are trying to imply that transforming to a different developmental stage by producing more IL-6, which would be sort of like saying that trees are evolving every time they produce leaves.
Words mean things, and meanings are important.
btw: I wouldn't be bothering to point this out... but someone already beat me to the more obvious flaw in your comment.
H.G. Wells wrote the War of the Worlds.
Orson Wells did the radio play.
There were no aliens... but there were probings.
Having BEEN in the situation myself, I can tell you that switching to neutral was the LAST thing I thought of. When you're sitting minding your own business at a red light and suddenly your car flares to life doing 60 mph in a couple of seconds, You're really much more focused on trying to stop the car, not the transfer of power from the engine through the transmission.
On a sidenote: Cutting power to the engine is ALSO a bad idea, at least if you happen to have power steering. Or so I discovered.
Glad you survived.
Having had many old as crap cars I've experienced the opposite, when you're going at speed on the highway and suddenly your brake cable snaps your first response better be to control the car through the transmission... otherwise your life ends as someone else's bumpersticker.
Like a lot of emergencies when it hits the fan all you've got to get you through is your past experience. I'd always say that someone should have "driving a standard" in their past experience.
Now you can have your brains and eat them too....
If this turns out to be a double post sorry.... it looks like /. somehow ate my first one
I find all sorts of business practices immoral and unacceptable... however no government anyway has passed a law against them.
Being philosophically evil is a standard business practice, and some (such as myself) might argue that capitalism as it exists rewards such evil. But the fact that something is clearly WRONG does not make it ILLEGAL.
Take your hypothetical flour example, there are no Anti-competitive practices described:
He has not colluded with competitors.
He is not preventing entry of anyone into the market.
His supplier is not contractually bound to deal only with him (or even with him at all).
He is doing the opposite of dumping.
His current position seems like a monopoly, but the presence of monopolistic circumstance is not illegal (particularly in short term situations); what is illegal is preventing competition from occurring.
and further more he is not even a monopoly.... Why?
Which governmental body has jurisdiction?
The Country or State? The $5 reseller is not the only person to sell flour within their jurisdiction so he is not engaged in a monopoly.
You have a lot of anger and frustration... this is good.
But only if you do something with it; and it has to be the right thing. Yelling "That's illegal" when something is not illegal is not the right thing.
Either work towards changing "legal" to be more representative of "fair", or educate others.
Before you can do any of this you must educate yourself.
i find it hard to believe so many of you think this is fair or legal or acceptable on any moral, legal, or philosophical basis
Since you seem to not be reading what anyone says, this is the last reply I will make.
I find all sorts of business practices immoral and unacceptable... however no government anyway has passed a law against them.
Being philosophically evil is a standard business practice, and some (such as myself) might argue that capitalism as it exists rewards such evil. But the fact that something is clearly WRONG does not make it ILLEGAL.
Take your hypothetical flour example, there are no Anti-competitive practices described:
He has not colluded with competitors.
He is not preventing entry of anyone into the market.
His supplier is not contractually bound to deal only with him (or even with him at all).
He is doing the opposite of dumping.
His current position seems like a monopoly, but the presence of monopolistic circumstance is not illegal (particularly in short term situations); what is illegal is preventing competition from occurring.
and further more he is not even a monopoly.... Why?
Which governmental body has jurisdiction?
The Country or State? The $5 reseller is not the only person to sell flour within their jurisdiction so he is not engaged in a monopoly.
You have a lot of anger and frustration... this is good.
But only if you do something with it; and it has to be the right thing. Yelling "That's illegal" when something is not illegal is not the right thing.
Either work towards changing "legal" to be more representative of "fair", or educate others.
Before you can do any of this you must educate yourself.
Requiring every ticket holder to have a valid ID to attend a concert would block such children from attending. That would work for Tom Waits but not for any of several acts that are popular with preteens, such as the Jonas Brothers or Miley Cyrus.
YA RLY! Think of the children!
every sunday a guy shows up with 20 bags of flour. the townspeople line up and buy the flour from the guy, $2/ a bag
one sunday, this asshole shows up really early, buys all 20 bags for $40, turns around and faces the townsfolk and says "ok, that will be $5 a bag from each of you"
understand the illegality yet?
Ummm..... NO.
That is not illegal. Greedy? yes. Unethical? yes. Parasitic? yes. But not illegal, it's not even a monopoly; and as many people are going to observe it is "the American dream" to buy something, do nothing, and double your investment.
What (in theory) is illegal here are potential allegations of impersonation, wire fraud, and unauthorized access.
Now if you have an idea of how to remove parasites from the market place then I'm all ears, but pretending that capitalism is illegal is not the same as fixing capitalism.
p.s. by "fixing capitalism" I mean either: "Making it work for the good of all" or "Cutting it's balls off so it stops breeding".
Yeah, like monkeys need pants. Haven't we had enough of you-hide-it-we-find-it accounting? The cost of this work should be realized when the funds are spent, not in some theoretical future when the benefits of FOSS may come back to the roost. Why? Because the primary benefit of FOSS is the avoidance of those costs in the future. To handle it otherwise would be double counting the benefit.
I don't think you are quite grasping the concept of "intangible asset" in this context. It doesn't refer to "financial products" or other forms of speculation on the commodities market.
Intangible assets are intellectual properties; such as trademarks, patents, copyrights, possibly even software licenses. They are intangible because their value cannot be assessed by the paper they are printed on.
Whatever our views of the current IP system, most people would agree that Intangible assets often have a value beyond the actual costs of creation.
Currently a company can claim the same deduction for contributing toward an FOSS as they can for in house software... the wages of their employees.
If FOSS contributions could be treated as an asset donated toward a charitable organization then things like the market value and basis come into play; under very common circumstances these will create a higher deduction.
so, in summary.... if you have problems with corporatism, capitalism, or the legal system; please learn to state it coherently and have some idea what subject is being discussed.
I don't really know how /. works as far as notifications regarding responses down the chain... so here's a link to consider.
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1561726&cid=31262354
Because Christians wanted it.
That's rather inflammatory, don't you think?
Would it not also be true that the majority wanted it, and the democratic process put it into action?
Or are Jews, Muslims, Scientologists, etc are completely opposed to tax breaks? No, no, you're right, it was probably those damn meddling Christians!
I also here that political charities are opposed to tax breaks.
What your friend is doing is against the law.
Only actual expenses are deductible, never labor.
See here:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/yc/churchlawtaxupdate/judge_donationsoflabor.html
Which strangely uses the exact example of donating electrical work to a church...
Yes and no...
This article relates to a discussion of translating time and effort into an asset.
Services and Time are not deductible... Assets are.
Think about it this way if you develop some ingenious recording/broadcasting device for your church you can claim your actual expenses as a donation.
However if you create this device and patent it you have now created an asset. If you then donate the patent to your church you are no longer restricted to the same set of expenses.
IRS Pub 526 states:
Patents and Other Intellectual Property
If you donate a patent or other intellectual property to a qualified organization, your deduction is limited to the basis of the property or the fair market value of the property, whichever is less. Intellectual property means any of the following:
* Patents.
* Copyrights (other than a copyright described in Internal Revenue Code sections 1221(a)(3) or 1231(b)(1)(C)).
* Trademarks.
* Trade names.
* Trade secrets.
* Know-how.
* Software (other than software described in Internal Revenue Code section 197(e)(3)(A)(i)).
* Other similar property or applications or registrations of such property.
A lot of how this applies to you will depend on whether you are an individual or a corporation (a corporation will have methods of assigning a much higher basis, and of course on the quality of your professional advice.
Can someone decode this for me?
Do they want to tax companies that sponsor F/OSS development? Or subsidize them? Or do they want the flexibility to do both, and will change their mind depending on which company and which year we're talking about?
Normally, my in-built translation apparatus resolves "Social Welfare" as "unethical extortion of wealth via the threat of state violence". But that's perhaps just my American perspective..
In the US there are several very deeply entrenched political biases against the responsibility of the individual to society... so yes your background influences how you are taking both the words "social" and "welfare".
Try reading it this way instead;
"Developing commons-based software contribute towards improving the standard of living in a very real way. Most tax entities provide for tax deductions of goods and services to charitable organizations. If FOSS development was given the same tax-reducing benefit that donations to religious and political organizations have, this would greatly foster (and to an extent subsidize) corporate interest in creating, contributing, and releasing commons-based software."
If such development contributions can become "intangible assets" (things that have value but not a price tag), then they can be "donated" to a charitable non-profit. The non-profit then assesses a value for the donation, and this amount now becomes tax deductible to the company.
Since this wasn't clear I'm just guessing that "intangible assets", "equitable tax treatment", and "donation" are the real things that you didn't understand... and "social welfare" was just the political trigger that you focused on.
If you genuinely want to learn the complexity of taxes, capitalism, freedom, and responsibility; I'd recommend you change where you get your news from.
p.s. As a personal recommendation; if you're able to disarm your "political triggers" try NPR instead of the usual network ratings whores. You'll learn a lot rather than be told a lot.
I personally have no problem with referring to risque-pics as "degrading toward ugly women". ...of course ugly women have as much political power these days as "middle aged white male executives"; so to remain in a position like apple means bowing to the opinions or people who read either "Fortune" or "Sexless Hag" magazine. (maybe both)
When he "exercises his freedom of speech" it's always a marathon.
No one can Wall O'Text like B. Hassle.
I'm wondering the same thing myself. I use Sumatra instead which is a far more stripped down reader. My instincts tell me that I'm safer because it doesn't have all of the integration (java etc) but I'd love to see some comparisons.
Is that the movie that appears in the video for Metallica's One?