This announcement will certainly bring out the paranoid reply of the masses... It doesn't really change what any of us "know" about possible cancer causing effects (or lack thereof). But let's be clear... This means that there is a "possibility" that it could contribute to cancer. The WHO has a whole range of classifications within this category that it still really means nothing.
As an example, other things on this list: coffee alcoholic drinks working the night shift
In case you come back to this... No. I'm not. But the carbon credit buyers believe it is... So I find it hypocritical. That is all.
I understand all angles involving burning fuel, whether you think it's immoral or not is irrelevant to the point I tried to make... If you think something is immoral, then just don't do it, or just minimize it. I don't care what anyone does with their energy, I just have a sore spot for people who are self-righteous, but then don't have to follow the rules that "the hoi polloi" because they can buy their way out.
Mr. Cuban, I will probably never even desire my own jet, and I feel like that if you are flying you really should use commercial. But I appreciate the fact that you call it like you see it. I'm glad to see you just own it and go with it.
I'm not as big a fan of the "carbon credits." I understand that these credits go towards promoting carbon reduction, but the system pretty much dictates "I'm rich, so I can buy my morality. See, when you have enough money, you don't need to reduce usage. You just pay others to clean up for you."
I'm hoping that in two releases they can come up with something better than an ocelot... Of course going with your theme, I'm sure they can find some name that may be kitteh related....
That's very true. But the housing deduction is something that many of us (or at least I) consider easy to work with. It is a very simple condition and result. You have a mortgage on your primary residence, you get to deduct the interest paid on the mortgage. The part that people complain about (as pointed out by other posters) are the pages and pages of exemptions and conditions that seem to apply to singular entities or extremely limited populations.
Honestly, I find it hard to swallow that one of the unintended consequences of the tax system is that at least one member of my family requires the services of accountants just to figure out how much they're being asked to pay in taxes. Yes this is anecdotal, I'm sorry. I bring it up because I doubt it's unique, especially considering that this person is not among the top 20% earners in the US. Their income is easy to figure out, but applying the different rules to the type of incomes they have makes it difficult to figure out what need to be paid. Maybe the consequence is actually intended... It doesn't really matter.
My humble opinion is that it would be in the best interest of the United States (or any country for that matter) to make taxes easy to calculate and collect. It would also be nice to know where those dollars actually go too...
I'm not a fan of our current tax system, but that's the stupidest thing I've ever read.
Not true. I'm sure you've read things that are much more stupid than that. Although I will concede that it's likely in the high end of the stupid spectrum.
This parent needs to be modded up. I know that very few of us are surprised that Microsoft went SCO on this, but requiring an NDA to see which patents were violated just reeks of patent trolling. Last I checked, *we're supposed to know that patents exist and what they cover so we can avoid violating them!*
Of course, I'm sure that they also acted in good business faith and contacted the other parties about these patents to allow Google et. al. to fix and remove the offending code. I'm also completely convinced that the patents in question provide true innovation and are worth licensing.
Just another case of "Software patents gone wild." Remember American brethren, contact your congresspeople and tell them to go EU style in regards to software patents because our current system continues to prioritize litigation over innovation.
I'm not usually a fan of the slippery slope argument, but I can see you working. Even without going to "What could Sony do next?" The original argument is still quite valid. When the PS3 was first released, there were some users who went and purchased one (over a competitor) because they liked the OtherOS option. It was an advertised capability.
I'm fine with the PS3 Slim not shipping with that capability, nobody who bought one was granted that feature. That's the price of the shiny new box.
But, for the hundreds, or handful, or even *one* buyer out there who wanted that OtherOS feature (and paid for the hardware to make it happen), it was just plain wrong of Sony to require that user to keep that one feature (and forgo all other PS3 features like gaming and streaming) or the feature that the buyer used as the difference between the PS3 and whatever else. That was the point of the lawsuit that is also fought on the gamer's behalf by the geek.
And if you look up weasel, you'll see Zuckerberg. It's irrelevant if they're greedy. If they were lied to, and screwed that's still bad business. If they really don't have a case, as the appeals court suggests, then too bad so sad.
But being slimy, greedy, or even just a bad person doesn't make you wrong. Signing a bad agreement does.
I wouldn't call it a step in the right direction necessarily. It's nice to see a troll get what it deserves (i.e. nothing), but this does point out that to overturn a patent, you have to have resources to do so. Which means the big players are going to have to lead the charge.
Plus, those same leaders have to be willing to not enforce the patents that they have with the same tactics. Last I checked, Apple seems pretty willing to defend its patents.
Depends... According to Intelligent Limits, if the baker fits a particular baking class, and the composition of the people arriving satisfy the belief hypothesis, you may only need to show up with one loaf.
Talk about two devils: One market will blatantly steal your product and disperse it within their borders at a discount or free. The other will sue you because someone thought of doing it, had no intention of actually doing it, but managed to get a patent to make sure they'd profit when someone did.
Sadly, one of those is lost revenue in that you make fewer sales. The other is lost revenue in what you have to pay in a settlement. At least in China you don't have to worry about losing assets that you had before entry.
Well, the only thing we can really do about it is: Write your congress-folks... Start doing it. Tell them to give the carriers a choice: 1) Don't meter. 2) Submit to utility-style regulation...
It looks to me like Google is hoping someone decides to step up sue them. I'd be willing to bet it'd be a great show... We might finally get that patent reform we've all been asking for.
Initially, I disagreed with you because my first thought was, "Why 30 years ago?" I figured that the revolution was still fresh in people's minds and it takes a force of the population to really begin something that leads to what Libya is seeing now...
Then I read the part where Gaddafi began assassinations of dissidents starting in 1980... If anyone deserves to be overthrown it's probably this guy.
Sadly, the United States is a bit busy taking care of other conflicts and racking up an even larger debt, further spending money it won't get from taxes for another 10 years. Leaving it to the UN will leave you with resolutions similar to exactly what is announced by TFA.
Not to be pedantic, TFA said the FDA isn't involved because they're not medical devices. They are exempt from state inspections because they belong to a federal agency.
Point still stands that these machines operate in a bit of a safety loophole and there's less oversight on them, which is even more worrisome due to the heavy lobbying and conflicts of interest that got these machines put in place to start with.
Slashdot Mirror
Those are total population numbers, not juveniles... You need to subtract the 18-20, 20-24 and 25 and above classifications.
This announcement will certainly bring out the paranoid reply of the masses... It doesn't really change what any of us "know" about possible cancer causing effects (or lack thereof). But let's be clear... This means that there is a "possibility" that it could contribute to cancer. The WHO has a whole range of classifications within this category that it still really means nothing.
As an example, other things on this list:
coffee
alcoholic drinks
working the night shift
And you can't trust anyone with more than 5 digits in their ID...
I don't know.. The whole warrant-less spying of American citizens?
In case you come back to this... No. I'm not. But the carbon credit buyers believe it is... So I find it hypocritical. That is all.
I understand all angles involving burning fuel, whether you think it's immoral or not is irrelevant to the point I tried to make... If you think something is immoral, then just don't do it, or just minimize it. I don't care what anyone does with their energy, I just have a sore spot for people who are self-righteous, but then don't have to follow the rules that "the hoi polloi" because they can buy their way out.
Mr. Cuban, I will probably never even desire my own jet, and I feel like that if you are flying you really should use commercial. But I appreciate the fact that you call it like you see it. I'm glad to see you just own it and go with it.
I'm not as big a fan of the "carbon credits." I understand that these credits go towards promoting carbon reduction, but the system pretty much dictates "I'm rich, so I can buy my morality. See, when you have enough money, you don't need to reduce usage. You just pay others to clean up for you."
I'm hoping that in two releases they can come up with something better than an ocelot... Of course going with your theme, I'm sure they can find some name that may be kitteh related....
That's very true. But the housing deduction is something that many of us (or at least I) consider easy to work with. It is a very simple condition and result. You have a mortgage on your primary residence, you get to deduct the interest paid on the mortgage. The part that people complain about (as pointed out by other posters) are the pages and pages of exemptions and conditions that seem to apply to singular entities or extremely limited populations.
Honestly, I find it hard to swallow that one of the unintended consequences of the tax system is that at least one member of my family requires the services of accountants just to figure out how much they're being asked to pay in taxes. Yes this is anecdotal, I'm sorry. I bring it up because I doubt it's unique, especially considering that this person is not among the top 20% earners in the US. Their income is easy to figure out, but applying the different rules to the type of incomes they have makes it difficult to figure out what need to be paid. Maybe the consequence is actually intended... It doesn't really matter.
My humble opinion is that it would be in the best interest of the United States (or any country for that matter) to make taxes easy to calculate and collect. It would also be nice to know where those dollars actually go too...
I'm not a fan of our current tax system, but that's the stupidest thing I've ever read.
Not true. I'm sure you've read things that are much more stupid than that. Although I will concede that it's likely in the high end of the stupid spectrum.
This parent needs to be modded up. I know that very few of us are surprised that Microsoft went SCO on this, but requiring an NDA to see which patents were violated just reeks of patent trolling. Last I checked, *we're supposed to know that patents exist and what they cover so we can avoid violating them!*
Of course, I'm sure that they also acted in good business faith and contacted the other parties about these patents to allow Google et. al. to fix and remove the offending code. I'm also completely convinced that the patents in question provide true innovation and are worth licensing.
Just another case of "Software patents gone wild." Remember American brethren, contact your congresspeople and tell them to go EU style in regards to software patents because our current system continues to prioritize litigation over innovation.
Netflix users on PS3 are SOL too.
I'm not usually a fan of the slippery slope argument, but I can see you working. Even without going to "What could Sony do next?" The original argument is still quite valid. When the PS3 was first released, there were some users who went and purchased one (over a competitor) because they liked the OtherOS option. It was an advertised capability.
I'm fine with the PS3 Slim not shipping with that capability, nobody who bought one was granted that feature. That's the price of the shiny new box.
But, for the hundreds, or handful, or even *one* buyer out there who wanted that OtherOS feature (and paid for the hardware to make it happen), it was just plain wrong of Sony to require that user to keep that one feature (and forgo all other PS3 features like gaming and streaming) or the feature that the buyer used as the difference between the PS3 and whatever else. That was the point of the lawsuit that is also fought on the gamer's behalf by the geek.
And if you look up weasel, you'll see Zuckerberg. It's irrelevant if they're greedy. If they were lied to, and screwed that's still bad business. If they really don't have a case, as the appeals court suggests, then too bad so sad.
But being slimy, greedy, or even just a bad person doesn't make you wrong. Signing a bad agreement does.
Isn't that the source of most pr0n anyway?
I wouldn't call it a step in the right direction necessarily. It's nice to see a troll get what it deserves (i.e. nothing), but this does point out that to overturn a patent, you have to have resources to do so. Which means the big players are going to have to lead the charge.
Plus, those same leaders have to be willing to not enforce the patents that they have with the same tactics. Last I checked, Apple seems pretty willing to defend its patents.
Depends... According to Intelligent Limits, if the baker fits a particular baking class, and the composition of the people arriving satisfy the belief hypothesis, you may only need to show up with one loaf.
It's a funny thing about being near enormous a-holes... As long as you're little less out there, you only look like a sphincter.
All apologies to Lewis Black.
Add to that, there's the status symbol of the "Twitter Ratio." Pretty much it's #of followers/#people you follow.
The higher the result, the more awesomer you are.
Talk about two devils:
One market will blatantly steal your product and disperse it within their borders at a discount or free.
The other will sue you because someone thought of doing it, had no intention of actually doing it, but managed to get a patent to make sure they'd profit when someone did.
Sadly, one of those is lost revenue in that you make fewer sales. The other is lost revenue in what you have to pay in a settlement. At least in China you don't have to worry about losing assets that you had before entry.
Well, the only thing we can really do about it is:
Write your congress-folks... Start doing it. Tell them to give the carriers a choice:
1) Don't meter.
2) Submit to utility-style regulation...
Make them pick their poison.
This is a very good point actually. Thank you AC.
It looks to me like Google is hoping someone decides to step up sue them. I'd be willing to bet it'd be a great show... We might finally get that patent reform we've all been asking for.
I have a solution... Never trust anyone with a UID of 6 digits or more...
dammit...
Initially, I disagreed with you because my first thought was, "Why 30 years ago?" I figured that the revolution was still fresh in people's minds and it takes a force of the population to really begin something that leads to what Libya is seeing now...
Then I read the part where Gaddafi began assassinations of dissidents starting in 1980... If anyone deserves to be overthrown it's probably this guy.
Sadly, the United States is a bit busy taking care of other conflicts and racking up an even larger debt, further spending money it won't get from taxes for another 10 years. Leaving it to the UN will leave you with resolutions similar to exactly what is announced by TFA.
Or The Land Before Time.
Not to be pedantic, TFA said the FDA isn't involved because they're not medical devices. They are exempt from state inspections because they belong to a federal agency.
Point still stands that these machines operate in a bit of a safety loophole and there's less oversight on them, which is even more worrisome due to the heavy lobbying and conflicts of interest that got these machines put in place to start with.