This will be hacked very quickly, (shame I would think it would be more likely people would stop using adobe if it wasn't) since the entire useful code base on the local machine, it can be cracked like any other software. The only way to stop people cracking your code is to move it onto a server and keep it secret.
Yes leasing is an expense and you can claim it in the same tax year, but you will eventually get the same money back though depreciation (if you don't on sell the software), just not in the same year. In the long run. It really depends if the amount money you expect to earn on the initial investment (that you didn't spend), is more than the extra cost you are paying for leasing the product.
Note: This excludes any other arguments about having your software on a cloud.
Drastically really? the chances of that are slim, another persons child may kill you anyway. If everybody stopped having children you could have as much money as you wanted eventually nobody is going to be around for you to buy from.
That no excuse, under the same rule you could pay women less because they have a period. Or maybe give women extra days to recover? The same thing isn't happening biologically so it justifies different employment conditions?
Both are discrimination, It should be based on the person who is the primary care giver to the child. In general that would be the mother (I am assuming) but it is possible that it is the father and in that case the man deserves the same amount of leave. As for the physical recovery that should be sick leave. 8 weeks is a long time to recover from child birth.
Yes it does, resolution isn't everything area (real screen size) also important. A 16:10 screen has 5% more area than a 16:9 monitor of the same size measured on the diagonal. and a 4:3 has 12% more.
I think Nuclear weapons are also reason for peace, A common enemy for a long time USSR. Sure economic integration helps peace as well but you can do that without a EU, just more trade between countries is fine.
Other reasons from Wikipedia that are relevant: The Schuman Declaration that created the ECSC had several distinct aims: - It would mark the birth of a united Europe. - It would encourage world peace. - It would transform Europe by a 'step by step' process (building through sectoral supranational communities) leading to the unification of Europe democratically, unifying two political blocks separated by the Iron Curtain. - It would make war between member states impossible. - It would create the world's first international anti-cartel agency. - It would create a single market across the Community. - It would, starting with the coal and steel sector, revitalise the whole European economy by similar community processes. - It would improve the world economy and the developing countries, such as Africa
Stating reason that supports your arguments but missing the reasons that support the opponent is a bit disingenuous.
War is always possible, The peace was brought about by may factors, how much one has contributed as opposed to others is hard to say.
Nobody said that musicians didn't work hard, (incredibly hard well that's a matter of opinion, does someone working as a cleaner or a mine work harder? physically yes mentally probably not, I don't work hard but I have much more than 20,000 hours of experience.) Years of practice can be achieved in spare time, 2 hours a day over 20 years is about 14000 hours, if you love to do something then you would find time to do it.
There are about 100 people in an orchestra (I assume you mean an an orchestra) 0.5 years per person say the started at 5 and the 20 that is that is not even a hour a day practice, quite easily fitted into spare time. And it is not 50 years per performance is it. I also takes zero of their time for me to play the CD again.
Musicians need to live, and need to be paid enough to survive comfortably, but they do not need to be paid in perpetuity for one performance. I think most musicians make a less than reasonable living from their music. However copyright doesn't help them it helps the organizations that employ them (unless you are famous), they just pay the minimum amount that they can get away with. The people that skim of the top of other peoples creativity make the real money. Copyright stops people creating since increases the cost of entry into the industry, reducing competition in the employment market.
I think the only appropriate response is to write a bot net (that people install willingly) that anyone can use run computationally expensive tasks, over the bot net.
Maybe charge a fee to schedule something. That way the people have the ability to spy on Government communications as well. It is only fair, or at the very least funny.
I will be expecting a knock on my door any time soon.
As a small share holder you have zero to no say in what the company you invest in does, it would be unfair to punish them more than the value of their shares.
Face it for public companies a lot of people are just investing in some unit trust and don't even invest directly in the company. I don't mind being held accountable for my actions or even loosing up to some predetermined amount of money if a company fails. But the possibly of loosing everything based on some stupid decision some CEO made in a company I am not watching that closely (I simply don't have the time or the information to do so), and have no say in anyway, that sounds ridiculous.
On the other hand Directors, CEOs and people who control large amounts of shares should be held more personally accountable for their actions. They get paid a lot of money for their positions, I have been told because of the responsibility that comes with the position, but more often than not, even if they screw up, they leave having earnt more money in a few years, than most people would have made in a life time.
Limited liability has its place to in small private companies as well. It allows people to start up a business without risking everything you have built up, including there spouses assets. Starting up company is risky (30% fail straight way http://business.dnb.com/small-business-information/real-statistics-show-that-70-percent-of-small-businesses-succeed-at-first/) an not something I would be willing to bet my house on. If everyone involved is aware of the fact you are a limited liability company it seems fine, as long as you are not conducting unethical activities, in that case I believe limited liability should not apply. Companies don't commit crimes people do, and the people responsible for the crime should be punished. Limited liability should provide no protection there.
If stupid patents fall: For Corporates its good news, they just don't know it, they can just get on with making products. For small players its good, they can just get on with making products. For consumers its good, they can get better products. Why don't we have a standard video format that plays on all browsers (patents). The only people it is bad for, are patent lawyers.
Password managers are a bad idea for anything you care about. The the fact is there are so many places out there that require a password, and frankly I just don't care that much.
Also biometrics have the problem of you can't change them so if someone gets that information what are you going to do then. Do you really want that porn site scanning the same eye that you use to login to your bank?
Yes I know that you can check that you don't get the exact same reading, but I am sure a computer could add enough changes fool the other computer checking.
A public/private key "smart card" that plugs into your Computer that does a challenge response, seems like a good solution. That way no one knows your password (just your public key). Your key can be truly random and as long as you want. You would need only one, but could have as many as you like. You would need some kind of authority to allow you to change your card, just in case you loose it, or it was compromised.
You could also make it so you had to press a button (or enter a pin) on the card in order for it to respond to an authentication request, for those who would leave the card plugged in to their computer.
Salaried employees do have a clock to be off of, they have expected hours to work, yes occasionally they can be asked to work longer for no extra pay, but it does not give the employer the right to call on them 24/7, unless I was on call (and paid more because of it). If my employer rang me up at midnight and said I had to come in for free, because I was still on the clock, I would not so politely tell them where to go.
In a salary there is give and take and works fine if both employer and employee are reasonable. But the moment I leave work I consider I myself off the clock. Otherwise I could stay home all week, do nothing and then say I worked an 168 hour week, I was never off the clock, right.
Also I don't think I would be making minimum wage, I better go an complain.
It would be hard to imagine $120000 for parking fine, but not for your child sharing a 1000 songs. Imaginary property does no scale in the same fashion as real property.
What really concerns me is what the level of proof required to impose such a penalty is. They denied the 1 offense.
Torrent Freak has a slightly different perspective: a lack of evidence and pushback from the tribunal resulted in much smaller fines than the RIANZ wanted.
lack of evidence should result in no fine. Although that is torrent freak so they may have been sufficient evidence, of the last act, but why would you say you did 2 and not the third?
The largest number of fines remitted by an individual in the past five years was 400 – totalling $40,000, remitted for 350 hours' community work in 2007.
that is $114 an hour after tax ($170 per hour before tax at 33%), not many people get paid that much.
It's all about marketing, simply advertise it as a discount for cash, instead of a surcharge for credit cards, same thing. I think it is perfectly reasonable for a shop to charge you the same amount more as it costs them.You do have to make it clear that there will be a surcharge of course, since no extra charge is the current standard I would consider it false advertising.
This will encourage credit card companies to lower fees, because they want people to use credit cards. Without it they have no incentive to lower fees they charge to the shops. The shops pass that cost onto you anyway. I have no desire to give the credit card company any money if I can at all avoid it. But as it stands it make much more sense to make all purchases a credit card. Lowest value transaction on a credit card so far is 10 cents.
The point isn't to attack the US, I agree that would just be ridiculous, North Korea would smoldering pile of ash long before the first nuke even got half way to hitting the US. Look at the response to 9/11, it was a couple of buildings destroyed, by a few people.
It is make the US think twice about imposing sanctions or invading them first (The US has proven they are willing to do that).
So unless Kim Jong-un is insane, which I am sure the opposing countries would like you to believe, this hole thing is about protecting North Korea from outside interference. There is will be no plan to attack the US.
Yes and No, most people don't intentionally do it but sometimes the system encourages it.
If your performance review is based on number of cases field guess what, you will file more cases. If you get a bonus for releasing on time, bugs suddenly become less important. If you measure peoples success by the amount of money they have people borrow to make themselves look rich. A police officer with a ticket quoter will try meet that quota.
It is not everyone, and not necessarily big things but little things accumulate.
There plenty of people who also do selfless acts, care about others, even the same people but the problem is the little bad things are so silent.
It is ok to optimize a metric but you have to be aware of the big picture, and what you are trying to achieve. You have to be able to make exceptions when it make sense to.
I agree, I am just saying that health care may be expensive (in the US), per unit of health per unit of real cost it are actually much better off, now than before.
Good luck to you, I do know a paraplegic and I asked him if he is less happy after his accident and he said no. Then again 1 case does not make a proof.
I would of course suggest saving, so you are not as financially dependent on your job, just on the off change you don't win lotto.
Being dependent on something makes you less happy yes, It introduces stress, if you have financial security in your life ( don't mean mega wealth just enough to know you are not going starve) it helps make you more happy. I enjoy hard work it makes me feel good to know I have accomplished something. It is all about degree of course, I need other things in my life apart from work and if the job takes too much of my of that it would stop being enjoyable. Working can be fun, it just there has to be a balance. I find family fun too but that may change if I couldn't get away once an a while.
Most, if not all of those things above safety don't really require money (maybe family aka children because you have to provide their needs). In fact working to much may detract from some of them, and good job can provide easily provide items in the Self-actualization, and Esteem categories with no money paid.
Maybe you pay for friendships, intimacy, self-esteem.. Sure the basic necessities of life cost money but today as a percentage of income they are much less than throughout history. All you need is a place to live, food to eat, be able to go to the doctor. 100 years ago how many people went do a doctor? To satisfy these you don't need the best just enough to meet your needs.
Slashdot Mirror
This will be hacked very quickly, (shame I would think it would be more likely people would stop using adobe if it wasn't) since the entire useful code base on the local machine, it can be cracked like any other software. The only way to stop people cracking your code is to move it onto a server and keep it secret.
Yes leasing is an expense and you can claim it in the same tax year, but you will eventually get the same money back though depreciation (if you don't on sell the software), just not in the same year. In the long run. It really depends if the amount money you expect to earn on the initial investment (that you didn't spend), is more than the extra cost you are paying for leasing the product.
Note: This excludes any other arguments about having your software on a cloud.
Drastically really? the chances of that are slim, another persons child may kill you anyway. If everybody stopped having children you could have as much money as you wanted eventually nobody is going to be around for you to buy from.
That no excuse, under the same rule you could pay women less because they have a period. Or maybe give women extra days to recover? The same thing isn't happening biologically so it justifies different employment conditions?
Both are discrimination, It should be based on the person who is the primary care giver to the child. In general that would be the mother (I am assuming) but it is possible that it is the father and in that case the man deserves the same amount of leave. As for the physical recovery that should be sick leave. 8 weeks is a long time to recover from child birth.
Yes it does, resolution isn't everything area (real screen size) also important. A 16:10 screen has 5% more area than a 16:9 monitor of the same size measured on the diagonal. and a 4:3 has 12% more.
I think Nuclear weapons are also reason for peace, A common enemy for a long time USSR. Sure economic integration helps peace as well but you can do that without a EU, just more trade between countries is fine.
Other reasons from Wikipedia that are relevant:
The Schuman Declaration that created the ECSC had several distinct aims:
- It would mark the birth of a united Europe.
- It would encourage world peace.
- It would transform Europe by a 'step by step' process (building through sectoral supranational communities) leading to the unification of Europe democratically, unifying two political blocks separated by the Iron Curtain.
- It would make war between member states impossible.
- It would create the world's first international anti-cartel agency.
- It would create a single market across the Community.
- It would, starting with the coal and steel sector, revitalise the whole European economy by similar community processes.
- It would improve the world economy and the developing countries, such as Africa
Stating reason that supports your arguments but missing the reasons that support the opponent is a bit disingenuous.
War is always possible, The peace was brought about by may factors, how much one has contributed as opposed to others is hard to say.
Nobody said that musicians didn't work hard, (incredibly hard well that's a matter of opinion, does someone working as a cleaner or a mine work harder? physically yes mentally probably not, I don't work hard but I have much more than 20,000 hours of experience.) Years of practice can be achieved in spare time, 2 hours a day over 20 years is about 14000 hours, if you love to do something then you would find time to do it.
There are about 100 people in an orchestra (I assume you mean an an orchestra) 0.5 years per person say the started at 5 and the 20 that is that is not even a hour a day practice, quite easily fitted into spare time. And it is not 50 years per performance is it. I also takes zero of their time for me to play the CD again.
Musicians need to live, and need to be paid enough to survive comfortably, but they do not need to be paid in perpetuity for one performance. I think most musicians make a less than reasonable living from their music. However copyright doesn't help them it helps the organizations that employ them (unless you are famous), they just pay the minimum amount that they can get away with. The people that skim of the top of other peoples creativity make the real money. Copyright stops people creating since increases the cost of entry into the industry, reducing competition in the employment market.
I think the only appropriate response is to write a bot net (that people install willingly) that anyone can use run computationally expensive tasks, over the bot net.
Maybe charge a fee to schedule something. That way the people have the ability to spy on Government communications as well. It is only fair, or at the very least funny.
I will be expecting a knock on my door any time soon.
I throw away many more years than that going to work every day. At least he had a chance of not having to work again.
Just going though all of apples patients in the hopes of finding 10 good ones would probably be cost prohibitive.
Just a joke I have no Idea how may patients apple actually have, but I would like to know
As a small share holder you have zero to no say in what the company you invest in does, it would be unfair to punish them more than the value of their shares.
Face it for public companies a lot of people are just investing in some unit trust and don't even invest directly in the company. I don't mind being held accountable for my actions or even loosing up to some predetermined amount of money if a company fails. But the possibly of loosing everything based on some stupid decision some CEO made in a company I am not watching that closely (I simply don't have the time or the information to do so), and have no say in anyway, that sounds ridiculous.
On the other hand Directors, CEOs and people who control large amounts of shares should be held more personally accountable for their actions. They get paid a lot of money for their positions, I have been told because of the responsibility that comes with the position, but more often than not, even if they screw up, they leave having earnt more money in a few years, than most people would have made in a life time.
Limited liability has its place to in small private companies as well. It allows people to start up a business without risking everything you have built up, including there spouses assets. Starting up company is risky (30% fail straight way http://business.dnb.com/small-business-information/real-statistics-show-that-70-percent-of-small-businesses-succeed-at-first/) an not something I would be willing to bet my house on. If everyone involved is aware of the fact you are a limited liability company it seems fine, as long as you are not conducting unethical activities, in that case I believe limited liability should not apply. Companies don't commit crimes people do, and the people responsible for the crime should be punished. Limited liability should provide no protection there.
If stupid patents fall:
For Corporates its good news, they just don't know it, they can just get on with making products.
For small players its good, they can just get on with making products.
For consumers its good, they can get better products. Why don't we have a standard video format that plays on all browsers (patents).
The only people it is bad for, are patent lawyers.
Password managers are a bad idea for anything you care about. The the fact is there are so many places out there that require a password, and frankly I just don't care that much.
Also biometrics have the problem of you can't change them so if someone gets that information what are you going to do then. Do you really want that porn site scanning the same eye that you use to login to your bank?
Yes I know that you can check that you don't get the exact same reading, but I am sure a computer could add enough changes fool the other computer checking.
A public/private key "smart card" that plugs into your Computer that does a challenge response, seems like a good solution. That way no one knows your password (just your public key). Your key can be truly random and as long as you want. You would need only one, but could have as many as you like. You would need some kind of authority to allow you to change your card, just in case you loose it, or it was compromised.
You could also make it so you had to press a button (or enter a pin) on the card in order for it to respond to an authentication request, for those who would leave the card plugged in to their computer.
Salaried employees do have a clock to be off of, they have expected hours to work, yes occasionally they can be asked to work longer for no extra pay, but it does not give the employer the right to call on them 24/7, unless I was on call (and paid more because of it). If my employer rang me up at midnight and said I had to come in for free, because I was still on the clock, I would not so politely tell them where to go.
In a salary there is give and take and works fine if both employer and employee are reasonable. But the moment I leave work I consider I myself off the clock. Otherwise I could stay home all week, do nothing and then say I worked an 168 hour week, I was never off the clock, right.
Also I don't think I would be making minimum wage, I better go an complain.
It would be hard to imagine $120000 for parking fine, but not for your child sharing a 1000 songs. Imaginary property does no scale in the same fashion as real property.
What really concerns me is what the level of proof required to impose such a penalty is. They denied the 1 offense.
Torrent Freak has a slightly different perspective: a lack of evidence and pushback from the tribunal resulted in much smaller fines than the RIANZ wanted.
lack of evidence should result in no fine. Although that is torrent freak so they may have been sufficient evidence, of the last act, but why would you say you did 2 and not the third?
They do in New Zealand as long as you don't pay them, and have no assets then yes.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3648818/More-fines-converted-into-community-work
The largest number of fines remitted by an individual in the past five years was 400 – totalling $40,000, remitted for 350 hours' community work in 2007.
that is $114 an hour after tax ($170 per hour before tax at 33%), not many people get paid that much.
It's all about marketing, simply advertise it as a discount for cash, instead of a surcharge for credit cards, same thing. I think it is perfectly reasonable for a shop to
charge you the same amount more as it costs them.You do have to make it clear that there will be a surcharge of course, since no extra charge is the current standard I would consider it false advertising.
This will encourage credit card companies to lower fees, because they want people to use credit cards. Without it they have no incentive to lower fees they charge to the shops. The shops pass that cost onto you anyway. I have no desire to give the credit card company any money if I can at all avoid it. But as it stands it make much more sense to make all purchases a credit card. Lowest value transaction on a credit card so far is 10 cents.
The point isn't to attack the US, I agree that would just be ridiculous, North Korea would smoldering pile of ash long before the first nuke even got half way to hitting the US. Look at the response to 9/11, it was a couple of buildings destroyed, by a few people.
It is make the US think twice about imposing sanctions or invading them first (The US has proven they are willing to do that).
So unless Kim Jong-un is insane, which I am sure the opposing countries would like you to believe, this hole thing is about protecting North Korea from outside interference. There is will be no plan to attack the US.
Yes and No, most people don't intentionally do it but sometimes the system encourages it.
If your performance review is based on number of cases field guess what, you will file more cases.
If you get a bonus for releasing on time, bugs suddenly become less important.
If you measure peoples success by the amount of money they have people borrow to make themselves look rich.
A police officer with a ticket quoter will try meet that quota.
It is not everyone, and not necessarily big things but little things accumulate.
There plenty of people who also do selfless acts, care about others, even the same people but the problem is the little bad things are so silent.
It is ok to optimize a metric but you have to be aware of the big picture, and what you are trying to achieve. You have to be able to make exceptions when it make sense to.
I agree, I am just saying that health care may be expensive (in the US), per unit of health per unit of real cost it are actually much better off, now than before.
If you do win, and you are not happier will you give your money to charity? I would suggest that might actually make you happier.
http://www.livescience.com/2376-key-happiness-give-money.html
8-).
Good luck to you, I do know a paraplegic and I asked him if he is less happy after his accident and he said no. Then again 1 case does not make a proof.
I would of course suggest saving, so you are not as financially dependent on your job, just on the off change you don't win lotto.
Once again good luck.
Being dependent on something makes you less happy yes, It introduces stress, if you have financial security in your life ( don't mean mega wealth just enough to know you are not going starve) it helps make you more happy. I enjoy hard work it makes me feel good to know I have accomplished something. It is all about degree of course, I need other things in my life apart from work and if the job takes too much of my of that it would stop being enjoyable. Working can be fun, it just there has to be a balance. I find family fun too but that may change if I couldn't get away once an a while.
from:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-study/102186/the-mega-millions-jackpot-reached-record-high-today-does-winning-the-lottery-m#
Discusses how winning the lottery does not make you happier.
Most, if not all of those things above safety don't really require money (maybe family aka children because you have to provide their needs). In fact working to much may detract from some of them, and good job can provide easily provide items in the Self-actualization, and Esteem categories with no money paid.
Maybe you pay for friendships, intimacy, self-esteem .. Sure the basic necessities of life cost money but today as a percentage of income they are much less than throughout history. All you need is a place to live, food to eat, be able to go to the doctor. 100 years ago how many people went do a doctor? To satisfy these you don't need the best just enough to meet your needs.