In case any of you are wondering, this is exactly the reason why a lot of us detest libertarianism, and refuse to vote for Ron Paul not because they think he can't win but because they think he would ruin this country.
She was older, not necessarily old; I got the feeling a couple of years had passed, but not decades. People age under stress; if you were to go back in time to the middle ages, you'd think the 30 year old peasants were 50 or 60.
Just have to avoid the potholes. Considering the BQE is pretty much the fastest way I can get to work by a factor of 2, I really would rather zig zag around them than close the highway down for repairs...
Because with the economic woes, war in Afghanistan going poorly... we need to rush to uncapitalize the signs in New York. Or the terrorists win.
Exactly. Because as long as the economy is in a recession and there is war in Afghanistan, every single function of government must be subordinate to those two things. Just like if there are any murderers free, 100% of the police force needs to be assigned to tracking them down.
NIMBYs will prevent the construction of new track or the running of truly high-speed trains on existing tracks - tons of small towns have regulations regarding maximum train speeds. They're not necessarily all wrong, either, because of the large number of at-grade crossings.
I believe train speed laws at the state and municipal levels are preempted by Federal law, so it doesn't really matter if those laws exist, they can be safely ignored.
You're preaching to your opponents. This is slashdot. This is a bastion of anti-union, pro-business groupthink. And if a business gets so big it threatens individual liberties? Well that's the government's fault, somehow.
You are generally right about it only being a recommendation at this point, but wrong about it being just a policy paper; it's a formal recommendation under the DMCA to the Librarian of Congress, who can adopt those recommended exemptions, and his or her decision is final--it doesn't have to be endorsed by Congress or the President.
"So you are saying Apple used 20 years of failure experience to produce the most defining electronic gadget of this lifetime? Mod +1 Interesting!"
Uhh...huh? You know what a "desktop" is, right?
I'm not sure I've ever read a technical review (or even a casual review) defining OSX as "failure" either.
Oh, OS X is a beautiful OS, probably the best desktop OS ever. I'd get a Mac if the hardware wasn't so overpriced just for OS X. But how has it done in the marketplace?
Hey, all I want is a 9 inch (or higher pad) with the ipad's battery life, a USB port, and a non-locked down OS (preferrably linux, but I'll take a Windows variant); all the other specs I can live with.
Why is it so hard for someone to just finally release an ipad competitor that at least tries to match the specs? 7 inches is barely above smartphone level.
Those numbers are a lot better than the numbers for any other major, where the ratio of positions for applications can go from 1 in 2 up to 1 in 10. Even lawyers from T4 schools are certain to get six digit salaries in five years. T3 or T2 school graduates will be rocking 7 digits, especially if they live in NY, LA, Houston, Dallas, or DC. T1 graduates are set for life barring a felony conviction.
Talking to people who post advertisements for entry-level lawyer positions (requiring a license and 0-3 years), a single advertisement for a 40k a year position will bring in hundreds of resumes, some of them from experienced lawyers who were previously making well into the six figures but who are out of work. Most of the lawyers I know five years out of law school (an upper T2) make substantially less than 80k, and some of them are out of work. T2-T4 graduates who I talk to now tell me most of their fellow law grads do not have jobs at all, not even temp work. Temp work hourly rates have halved in the past few years. And if you are one of the tiny handful of people to get into Kramer Levin (and stay, since they cut a lot of attorney positions lately), the highest-paying firm in the country, and if you managed to last 5 years, you will make approximately $250k a year.
I do not know where you got your information, but I sincerely hope for your sake you are not in law school.
If this was not the case, then why do high school counselors warn graduating seniors against going into hard sciences and tell them to go the business/law route if they want to be productive citizens in the US?
I have never heard a high school counselor say this. I've never heard anyone other than you ever say a high school counselor said this. Students are told repeatedly throughout grades K-12 that the safest, most secure jobs are the technical ones. They are told to go into computer science and engineering. Pundits complain incessantly about US students falling behind in math and science, but ignore the humanities.
The data suggests that most companies, when threatened with a lawsuit, end up settling or licensing to avoid the high costs of litigating. But the fact that so few software patents and patent trolls do well at trial may be more incentive to fight back.
Of course we don't get a link to the paper itself, but the fact that where defendants decide their case is strong enough to go to trial, they tend to win, is not especially surprising.
[1]: The only profession this doesn't really apply to, where earnings actually go up each year, is law. Here, once someone passes their state bar exam, they have a career for life and (barring a felony conviction or disbarment) can never end up unemployed.
OMG...No. Seriously. Law is probably the most insecure profession right now; thousands of attorneys have been laid off, tens of thousands of struggling solo practitioners are struggling or bankrupt, and the law schools churn out approximately 45,000 graduates a year for, at best, 30,000 positions. Do a google search for "unemployed law graduates" or "law school scam blogs."
And like most people who cite the Laffer Curve without really understanding what it is, you are missing the very basic fact (reflected in its actual name) that it is a CURVE. All the Laffer Curve represents is that there is some tax rate at which tax revenues are maximized. It doesn't state that it is a high or a low rate. Those economists who have attempted to quantify that optimal tax rate have tended to reach values far higher than what slashdot Laffer Curve advocates actually think is a good idea. Or would you like a 78.8% tax rate as one economist calculated?
Your cite to the august economics journal USA Today notwithstanding, the economy wasn't "booming" from 2003-2007; some people made a lot of money, but real wages fell during that time period. The illusion of prosperity isn't prosperity. And tax revenues generally rise every year outside a recession, so "record levels" isn't really that impressive.
I agree with you -- which is why I have a kindle and do most of my pleasure reading on that. Could never read on a smartphone or laptop like so many slashdotters urge people to do here, I look at enough glowing squares at work, don't need to do it at home.
Slashdot Mirror
In case any of you are wondering, this is exactly the reason why a lot of us detest libertarianism, and refuse to vote for Ron Paul not because they think he can't win but because they think he would ruin this country.
There are plenty of comments that are filled with contempt "this joke of a 'spacecraft'". I think a lot of it is jealousy.
You sure told that 8 year old. Kudos.
She was older, not necessarily old; I got the feeling a couple of years had passed, but not decades. People age under stress; if you were to go back in time to the middle ages, you'd think the 30 year old peasants were 50 or 60.
Just have to avoid the potholes. Considering the BQE is pretty much the fastest way I can get to work by a factor of 2, I really would rather zig zag around them than close the highway down for repairs...
Because with the economic woes, war in Afghanistan going poorly... we need to rush to uncapitalize the signs in New York. Or the terrorists win.
Exactly. Because as long as the economy is in a recession and there is war in Afghanistan, every single function of government must be subordinate to those two things. Just like if there are any murderers free, 100% of the police force needs to be assigned to tracking them down.
There's apparently a case on that; a quick skim suggests that state speed limits are preempted by Federal law.
Are birds similarly poisoned by acetaminophen? And do they eat carrion?
NIMBYs will prevent the construction of new track or the running of truly high-speed trains on existing tracks - tons of small towns have regulations regarding maximum train speeds. They're not necessarily all wrong, either, because of the large number of at-grade crossings.
I believe train speed laws at the state and municipal levels are preempted by Federal law, so it doesn't really matter if those laws exist, they can be safely ignored.
You're preaching to your opponents. This is slashdot. This is a bastion of anti-union, pro-business groupthink. And if a business gets so big it threatens individual liberties? Well that's the government's fault, somehow.
You are generally right about it only being a recommendation at this point, but wrong about it being just a policy paper; it's a formal recommendation under the DMCA to the Librarian of Congress, who can adopt those recommended exemptions, and his or her decision is final--it doesn't have to be endorsed by Congress or the President.
"So you are saying Apple used 20 years of failure experience to produce the most defining electronic gadget of this lifetime? Mod +1 Interesting!"
Uhh...huh? You know what a "desktop" is, right?
I'm not sure I've ever read a technical review (or even a casual review) defining OSX as "failure" either.
Oh, OS X is a beautiful OS, probably the best desktop OS ever. I'd get a Mac if the hardware wasn't so overpriced just for OS X. But how has it done in the marketplace?
they're letting their "traditional" computer hardware and software lines languish and become bloated in some areas.
Smartly; when it comes to Apple's desktop computing business, it's a 30 year history of failure.
If they didn't have the money for a lawyer, then what's the point of suing them?
Yep looks pretty cool, definitely something I would take over the ipad. Wonder when (or if) the US gets it.
Hey, all I want is a 9 inch (or higher pad) with the ipad's battery life, a USB port, and a non-locked down OS (preferrably linux, but I'll take a Windows variant); all the other specs I can live with.
Why is it so hard for someone to just finally release an ipad competitor that at least tries to match the specs? 7 inches is barely above smartphone level.
Those numbers are a lot better than the numbers for any other major, where the ratio of positions for applications can go from 1 in 2 up to 1 in 10. Even lawyers from T4 schools are certain to get six digit salaries in five years. T3 or T2 school graduates will be rocking 7 digits, especially if they live in NY, LA, Houston, Dallas, or DC. T1 graduates are set for life barring a felony conviction.
Talking to people who post advertisements for entry-level lawyer positions (requiring a license and 0-3 years), a single advertisement for a 40k a year position will bring in hundreds of resumes, some of them from experienced lawyers who were previously making well into the six figures but who are out of work. Most of the lawyers I know five years out of law school (an upper T2) make substantially less than 80k, and some of them are out of work. T2-T4 graduates who I talk to now tell me most of their fellow law grads do not have jobs at all, not even temp work. Temp work hourly rates have halved in the past few years. And if you are one of the tiny handful of people to get into Kramer Levin (and stay, since they cut a lot of attorney positions lately), the highest-paying firm in the country, and if you managed to last 5 years, you will make approximately $250k a year.
I do not know where you got your information, but I sincerely hope for your sake you are not in law school.
If this was not the case, then why do high school counselors warn graduating seniors against going into hard sciences and tell them to go the business/law route if they want to be productive citizens in the US?
I have never heard a high school counselor say this. I've never heard anyone other than you ever say a high school counselor said this. Students are told repeatedly throughout grades K-12 that the safest, most secure jobs are the technical ones. They are told to go into computer science and engineering. Pundits complain incessantly about US students falling behind in math and science, but ignore the humanities.
Huh? Federal cases almost always go to mediation before they go to trial.
The data suggests that most companies, when threatened with a lawsuit, end up settling or licensing to avoid the high costs of litigating. But the fact that so few software patents and patent trolls do well at trial may be more incentive to fight back.
Of course we don't get a link to the paper itself, but the fact that where defendants decide their case is strong enough to go to trial, they tend to win, is not especially surprising.
[1]: The only profession this doesn't really apply to, where earnings actually go up each year, is law. Here, once someone passes their state bar exam, they have a career for life and (barring a felony conviction or disbarment) can never end up unemployed.
OMG...No. Seriously. Law is probably the most insecure profession right now; thousands of attorneys have been laid off, tens of thousands of struggling solo practitioners are struggling or bankrupt, and the law schools churn out approximately 45,000 graduates a year for, at best, 30,000 positions. Do a google search for "unemployed law graduates" or "law school scam blogs."
See: Laffer Curve.
And like most people who cite the Laffer Curve without really understanding what it is, you are missing the very basic fact (reflected in its actual name) that it is a CURVE. All the Laffer Curve represents is that there is some tax rate at which tax revenues are maximized. It doesn't state that it is a high or a low rate. Those economists who have attempted to quantify that optimal tax rate have tended to reach values far higher than what slashdot Laffer Curve advocates actually think is a good idea. Or would you like a 78.8% tax rate as one economist calculated?
Your cite to the august economics journal USA Today notwithstanding, the economy wasn't "booming" from 2003-2007; some people made a lot of money, but real wages fell during that time period. The illusion of prosperity isn't prosperity. And tax revenues generally rise every year outside a recession, so "record levels" isn't really that impressive.
What do you expect after having 3 decades of US policy decided mostly by low-tax, small-government fanatics?
And apparently a troll somehow?
I agree with you -- which is why I have a kindle and do most of my pleasure reading on that. Could never read on a smartphone or laptop like so many slashdotters urge people to do here, I look at enough glowing squares at work, don't need to do it at home.