Was there a set term for this contract? Was the contract continually renewed?
The point is that if there is no end to the term then it is not a contract but an employment agreement. Uber agreements do not have a specific termination date.
The main differences are as follows; 1. Uber sells a service and Amazon sell items. 2. Uber takes a request and directs that request to a driver chosen by Uber. Amazon connects a specific purchaser to the seller they chose. 3. Uber sets the price for the trip. The price is set by the seller on Amazon.
By that logic anyone who has more than one job is a contractor. Whether or not benefits are required is based on the number of hours one works for a company not the number of companies one works for.
Yes, you are wrong. Under bilateral copyright agreements copyrights from certain countries have the same legal standing as US copyrights. Using the DMCA against a US company in the US is valid for any entity from any of the countries that have agreements with the US.
The US recognizes foreign copyrights as if they were US copyright by way of bilateral copyright agreements. It does not matter what law the Times is required to follow it matters what law First Look Media must follow.
If you are in a traffic wreck and spent five hours in a bar prior to the accident the jury may well be enlightened as to who probably was at fault in the wreck.
I believe they would only be collecting location information when a transaction is in progress. If you are in a bar doing banking periodically for five hours there is a problem.
I have been in a bar for five hours and have walked out completely sober. I have a couple of alcoholic drinks in the first couple of hours and then non-alcoholic for the last three. It is called personal responsibility. One does not have to get drunk when at a bar. Any descent lawyer could show that being in a bar is circumstantial evidence at best.
If you don't like Walmart's consent policy then go to a different company who does not have those consent policies. Not all companies do facial recognition. Coose one that does not .
You can have multiple inlets for steam that trigger as the piston goes forward, thus causing an increase in the amount of steam as the piston expands.
How do you tune the acceleration curve to handle different aircraft? Wouldn't each of those ports need to be a valve and each valve becoming a point of failure?
I am really getting tired having to verify your figures. You are correct, I guess I was looking at a quarterly figure. Even then comparing a company that sells expensive cars to GM is based on revenue is biased. You still can't equate losing 6,000 direct jobs with losing over 300,000 direct jobs.
You do realize the more you point out how big & powerful GM is, the weaker the case for it getting a subsidy for developing a car that's essentially a modification of what had been done 15 years ago by 2 foreign automakers?
You really don't understand the reason behind tax incentives. The US car makers were just fine selling conventional cars. There was no business reason to invest in the new technology. With the incentives the government can get car companies to invest the way they want. In this case EVs. Then there is the issue of whether or not those foreign automakers were subsidized by their government.
Maybe we'd be better served by having more gnats than ponderous giants that have trouble making a profit selling something that Americans want more than oxygen.
You may be right but there is a certain fact that causes giants to be formed. It is called economy of scale. It will always be cheaper for one company to produce a million items than for a hundred companies to produce 10,000 each.
BTW, the US got most of their money back from the GM bailout.
Here is a summary of the benefits of the GM bailout;
A study released Monday by the Center for Automotive Research concluded that the government bailout of GM spared 1.2 million jobs in 2009 and preserved $39.4 billion in personal and social insurance tax collections in 2009 and 2010. “Any complete cost-benefit assessment of the federal assistance to GM in its restructuring must consider the total net returns to the public investment” researchers Sean McAlinden and Debra Maranger Menk wrote in “The Effect on the U.S. Economy of the Successful Restructuring of General Motors.”
Sorry but you didn't do much research before posting.
The carriers are all nuclear which means they boil sea water to turn steam turbines.
Boiling seawater would produce a lot of salt which would clog the boilers.
The EM system means you have high voltage lines running under the decks and I generally think the system is going to be more complicated and harder to repair/maintain than the steam version.
The high voltage lines take up a lot less space than all the pipes an insulation needed for steam. Pipes corrode and need to be replaced and are susceptible to vibration damage. Maintenance on a wire is much less than on a pipe.
Smoother acceleration? That also makes no sense.
Pistons provide maximum acceleration at the beginning of the stroke and less at the end. That is exactly the opposite of what is good for an aircraft. It is difficult to modify where in the stroke to apply thrust for different aircraft types.
We were hearing about them testing robots to go into a nuclear reactor in Japan.
So what? The catapult will not operate in a high radiation environment.
A steam piston is more reliable than some electro magnetic whatever.
There are a lot more to a steam powered catapult than a simple piston. If any of the valves jam the catapult is down.
Saying that you can't do this with finesse ignores that the most advanced robots these days actually make use of pneumatic actuators.
Which are limited in size and power by the difficulty in moving fluids. Sorry buy advanced robots do not accelerate aircraft weighing tons to flight velocity.
I never calculated revenue per vehicle. Sure Tesla make more money per vehicle. Their vehicles cost a lot more. What is your point?
I compared revenue to revenue, number of vehicles to number of vehicles and number of employees to number of employees
As a company get larger the impact on the economy gets bigger if the company goes under. If Tesla goes under the impact would be tiny. If GM went under there would be significant jumps in unemployment in certain regions which could lead to further downturn and deepen the recession. Tesla is a gnat compared to GM.
Take a look at these advanteges Another main advantage is that the linear accelerator allows change in acceleration (jerk) to be better controlled along the path. Much of the stress on the aircraft is caused by the initial jerk at the beginning of the launch. A steam catapult goes from no acceleration to high acceleration very quickly and uncontrollably. A linear motor can spread out that jerk and still get the aircraft up to the desired velocity.
Do you have a link for that or do you not know how to write an link? I may as well do the work for you. Notice the title?
Limitation on depreciation for luxury automobiles; limitation where certain property used for personal purposes
Section 180F is not a tax break as it limits the amount of depreciation allowed.
Just look at the title of Section 179;
election to expense certain depreciable business assets
The text you linked to now has specific language regarding SUVs
Yes, as a limitation on a general tax break.
In any case this was a small part of a huge tax break bill that Dubya & the GOP used as lube for handjobbing the nation around the same time they launched the Iraq War, a fiasco that will haunt America more profoundly than Vietnam.
So lets try to change the subject when you know your original point about section 179 being a specific SUV tax break was incorrect. I believe that is called a red herring. We are discussing tax breaks not wars.
BYW, here are the amendments to 179. This section has always been a general write off allowance.
One final point, all this does is allow the small business to take the entire deduction in one year rather than having to take the deduction as regular year by year depreciation.
Take a look at the Tesla AWD. The front motor is is much smaller than the rear motor. While it may move it would be much slower. The front motor is there for traction control and acceleration boost.
I wonder if they'll get as generous a package as Government Motors did when they needed rescuing?
No they won't. Tesla revenue was $881.67M producing 36,000 vehicles and has 6,000 employees. GM makes revenue was $155.929 billion, producing 9,714,652 vehicles and has 216,000 employees. Based on revenue GM is 176 times as big as Tesla. On a vehicle production basis GM is 270 times as big. Let GM fail and at least 216,000 people are out of work. That does not include all the dealers, parts suppliers, transport companies, etc. Let Tesla fail the would be 6,000 people are out of work. See the difference?
Getting a free pass on $45 billion in future profits is a pretty sweet deal.
To scale it to the size by revenue that would be $255M in tax breaks to Tesla. To scale it to the size by vehicle production that would be $166M in tax breaks to Tesla.
Section 179 is a general code for the purchase of capitol goods. For a vehicle to qualify as capitol goods under this section it used to have to be over 6,000 pounds.
The main point you refuse to see is that what you are referring to is not a specific tax break for SUVs but a general tax break for small business capitol purchases. That it was sometimes used for SUVs is beside the point. It was also not a subsidy to the auto manufacturer but a tax break to the purchaser. The purchaser could have bought anything. Calling it a subsidy for SUVs is inaccurate.
For the money lent to Tesla, the government got an expensive cool car that's already been upgraded significantly a couple times, that can lose an entire drive unit and keep on going,
The model S has one motor not a motor in each wheel.
Slashdot Mirror
Was there a set term for this contract? Was the contract continually renewed?
The point is that if there is no end to the term then it is not a contract but an employment agreement. Uber agreements do not have a specific termination date.
The main differences are as follows;
1. Uber sells a service and Amazon sell items.
2. Uber takes a request and directs that request to a driver chosen by Uber. Amazon connects a specific purchaser to the seller they chose.
3. Uber sets the price for the trip. The price is set by the seller on Amazon.
By that logic anyone who has more than one job is a contractor. Whether or not benefits are required is based on the number of hours one works for a company not the number of companies one works for.
Yes, you are wrong. Under bilateral copyright agreements copyrights from certain countries have the same legal standing as US copyrights. Using the DMCA against a US company in the US is valid for any entity from any of the countries that have agreements with the US.
The US recognizes foreign copyrights as if they were US copyright by way of bilateral copyright agreements. It does not matter what law the Times is required to follow it matters what law First Look Media must follow.
This is a British company who holds an internationally recognized copyright applying a US law to a US company.
US law recognizes foreign copyrights. First Look Media is a US company and therefore is required to follow US law. Therefore DMCA does apply.
That being said I would consider this fair use as commentary and therefore not infringement.
What API would you use?
If you are in a traffic wreck and spent five hours in a bar prior to the accident the jury may well be enlightened as to who probably was at fault in the wreck.
I believe they would only be collecting location information when a transaction is in progress. If you are in a bar doing banking periodically for five hours there is a problem.
I have been in a bar for five hours and have walked out completely sober. I have a couple of alcoholic drinks in the first couple of hours and then non-alcoholic for the last three. It is called personal responsibility. One does not have to get drunk when at a bar. Any descent lawyer could show that being in a bar is circumstantial evidence at best.
I just don't understand the appeal of "we have an app for that"
My credit union has a deposit cheque by phone. A browser can't do that.
I bet there will be a no subcontract clause or a clause specifying what launch vehicle is used.
This rule would only apply to the internet, not TV or print.
What about news reports that appear on the internet?
If you don't like Walmart's consent policy then go to a different company who does not have those consent policies. Not all companies do facial recognition. Coose one that does not .
fly the drone within 5 miles of the airport without authorization from the tower.
Jerk is the change in acceleration.
You can have multiple inlets for steam that trigger as the piston goes forward, thus causing an increase in the amount of steam as the piston expands.
How do you tune the acceleration curve to handle different aircraft? Wouldn't each of those ports need to be a valve and each valve becoming a point of failure?
I am really getting tired having to verify your figures. You are correct, I guess I was looking at a quarterly figure. Even then comparing a company that sells expensive cars to GM is based on revenue is biased. You still can't equate losing 6,000 direct jobs with losing over 300,000 direct jobs.
You do realize the more you point out how big & powerful GM is, the weaker the case for it getting a subsidy for developing a car that's essentially a modification of what had been done 15 years ago by 2 foreign automakers?
You really don't understand the reason behind tax incentives. The US car makers were just fine selling conventional cars. There was no business reason to invest in the new technology. With the incentives the government can get car companies to invest the way they want. In this case EVs. Then there is the issue of whether or not those foreign automakers were subsidized by their government.
Maybe we'd be better served by having more gnats than ponderous giants that have trouble making a profit selling something that Americans want more than oxygen.
You may be right but there is a certain fact that causes giants to be formed. It is called economy of scale. It will always be cheaper for one company to produce a million items than for a hundred companies to produce 10,000 each.
BTW, the US got most of their money back from the GM bailout.
Here is a summary of the benefits of the GM bailout;
A study released Monday by the Center for Automotive Research concluded that the government bailout of GM spared 1.2 million jobs in 2009 and preserved $39.4 billion in personal and social insurance tax collections in 2009 and 2010. “Any complete cost-benefit assessment of the federal assistance to GM in its restructuring must consider the total net returns to the public investment” researchers Sean McAlinden and Debra Maranger Menk wrote in “The Effect on the U.S. Economy of the Successful Restructuring of General Motors.”
Sorry but you didn't do much research before posting.
The carriers are all nuclear which means they boil sea water to turn steam turbines.
Boiling seawater would produce a lot of salt which would clog the boilers.
The EM system means you have high voltage lines running under the decks and I generally think the system is going to be more complicated and harder to repair/maintain than the steam version.
The high voltage lines take up a lot less space than all the pipes an insulation needed for steam. Pipes corrode and need to be replaced and are susceptible to vibration damage. Maintenance on a wire is much less than on a pipe.
Smoother acceleration? That also makes no sense.
Pistons provide maximum acceleration at the beginning of the stroke and less at the end. That is exactly the opposite of what is good for an aircraft. It is difficult to modify where in the stroke to apply thrust for different aircraft types.
We were hearing about them testing robots to go into a nuclear reactor in Japan.
So what? The catapult will not operate in a high radiation environment.
A steam piston is more reliable than some electro magnetic whatever.
There are a lot more to a steam powered catapult than a simple piston. If any of the valves jam the catapult is down.
Saying that you can't do this with finesse ignores that the most advanced robots these days actually make use of pneumatic actuators.
Which are limited in size and power by the difficulty in moving fluids. Sorry buy advanced robots do not accelerate aircraft weighing tons to flight velocity.
What's $881.67M divided by 36,000??
I never calculated revenue per vehicle. Sure Tesla make more money per vehicle. Their vehicles cost a lot more. What is your point?
I compared revenue to revenue, number of vehicles to number of vehicles and number of employees to number of employees
As a company get larger the impact on the economy gets bigger if the company goes under. If Tesla goes under the impact would be tiny. If GM went under there would be significant jumps in unemployment in certain regions which could lead to further downturn and deepen the recession. Tesla is a gnat compared to GM.
Only the P85D has a smaller front motor - and small-er doesn't mean small.
Yet again no references. Take a look at this picture. Notice the difference in size of the front and read drivetrains.
Tesla's footprint extends well beyond the Fremont factory.
So does GM's. Parts manufacturers, shipping companies, dealerships, etc.
more importantly, the stock market.
In that arena, Tesla is 50% the size of GM, not 0.03%. Grossly overvalued but it is what it is.
Losing $30B in market cap is very different than 216,000 jobs. The move was to protect jobs and therefore unemployment.
Take a look at these advanteges
Another main advantage is that the linear accelerator allows change in acceleration (jerk) to be better controlled along the path. Much of the stress on the aircraft is caused by the initial jerk at the beginning of the launch. A steam catapult goes from no acceleration to high acceleration very quickly and uncontrollably. A linear motor can spread out that jerk and still get the aircraft up to the desired velocity.
Have a look also at section 280F.
Do you have a link for that or do you not know how to write an link? I may as well do the work for you. Notice the title?
Limitation on depreciation for luxury automobiles; limitation where certain property used for personal purposes
Section 180F is not a tax break as it limits the amount of depreciation allowed.
Just look at the title of Section 179;
election to expense certain depreciable business assets
The text you linked to now has specific language regarding SUVs
Yes, as a limitation on a general tax break.
In any case this was a small part of a huge tax break bill that Dubya & the GOP used as lube for handjobbing the nation around the same time they launched the Iraq War, a fiasco that will haunt America more profoundly than Vietnam.
So lets try to change the subject when you know your original point about section 179 being a specific SUV tax break was incorrect. I believe that is called a red herring. We are discussing tax breaks not wars.
BYW, here are the amendments to 179. This section has always been a general write off allowance.
One final point, all this does is allow the small business to take the entire deduction in one year rather than having to take the deduction as regular year by year depreciation.
Take a look at the Tesla AWD. The front motor is is much smaller than the rear motor. While it may move it would be much slower. The front motor is there for traction control and acceleration boost.
I wonder if they'll get as generous a package as Government Motors did when they needed rescuing?
No they won't. Tesla revenue was $881.67M producing 36,000 vehicles and has 6,000 employees. GM makes revenue was $155.929 billion, producing 9,714,652 vehicles and has 216,000 employees. Based on revenue GM is 176 times as big as Tesla. On a vehicle production basis GM is 270 times as big. Let GM fail and at least 216,000 people are out of work. That does not include all the dealers, parts suppliers, transport companies, etc. Let Tesla fail the would be 6,000 people are out of work. See the difference?
Getting a free pass on $45 billion in future profits is a pretty sweet deal.
To scale it to the size by revenue that would be $255M in tax breaks to Tesla. To scale it to the size by vehicle production that would be $166M in tax breaks to Tesla.
Section 179 is a general code for the purchase of capitol goods. For a vehicle to qualify as capitol goods under this section it used to have to be over 6,000 pounds.
The main point you refuse to see is that what you are referring to is not a specific tax break for SUVs but a general tax break for small business capitol purchases. That it was sometimes used for SUVs is beside the point. It was also not a subsidy to the auto manufacturer but a tax break to the purchaser. The purchaser could have bought anything. Calling it a subsidy for SUVs is inaccurate.
For the money lent to Tesla, the government got an expensive cool car that's already been upgraded significantly a couple times, that can lose an entire drive unit and keep on going,
The model S has one motor not a motor in each wheel.
Who paid for development of the Leaf
I don't know and neither do you.