These are corporate profits. Whoever actually owns the company still gets taxed on any of the value that they sell or get dividends on. So apple's rate may be 9.8%, but most people who get the remaining 90% still pay more taxes. Just not usually in the same year.
Production costs for so-called "conventional" farming have high negative externalities--costs that are simply not captured in a yield-per-acre formula, or even a yield-per-dollar forumula.
Which makes this metastudy not particularly useful or meaningful, because without some way of assessing those costs, we don't have enough information to know what is better.
Yes. The Pacific Tsunami Warning System is already fast. I can get earthquake info almost as fast from the USGS as I can from a million people on facebook live-reporting the earthquake.
So this project, while cool, sounds more like a way to get funding than anything else.
If you believe abortion is murder, you may pick Republicans as the lesser of two evils because in the event of a Court Appointee, you save a lot of lives. If you believe a woman's right to control her body is sacrosanct, you may pick Democrats as the lesser of two evils because otherwise you prevent a lot of intolerance.
Either way, you're voting for a government that kills people without trials, in terms of drone targeting. But that doesn't mean there's no difference.
Vote for a third party only if you see it as helping that third party toward a particular objective. Otherwise, campaign for a third party (promote it, whatever), but vote for the lesser of the two big evils. Because third parties are not going to win anytime soon, and if you vote for the third party, you take a vote away from the lesser evil, which makes the greater evil more likely to win.
It would be great if voting for a third party meant they could win. And it would be great if saying nobody who works hard should go bankrupt made it happen. Sadly, life doesn't work that way, and we have to make strategic choices.
Sometimes you partner with a lesser evil to defeat a greater one, or partner with a greater good even though it costs you the ability to make a lesser good manifest.
Could also be part of a push to strengthen the FCC, by pointing out to Congress that they need larger sanctions. I.e. they could be doing this to prep for congressional testimony for the next time there's a Communications Act amendment.
Publishers are still needed for editing and marketing, as books rarely become best sellers by themselves. However, the lower cost of digital distribution should mostly go to us, the consumers. If a print book is $10, I want the ebook for $7...
But that's the thing. There really is a value-added service. A small publisher can get his book on Amazon without much trouble at all. Big publishers aren't the gatekeepers they used to be, but they bring in something extra, and they can't collude to keep anyone out of the market. All they can do is raise or lower prices on the books they own the rights to print. They can charge whatever they want for the book, and you can buy it or not buy it--it's not like anticompetitive behavior in gas or oil or telecom or power.
This is because of a new law that passed in the last week or so.
Good news: crowd-sourcing of entrepreneurial dollars for small startups may really help some good companies, particularly where angel investing and venture capital financing are as hard to find as they are right now.
Bad news: there were huge concerns about due diligence/accounting/accountability/regulatory structure/people using this for scams (plus, of course, how many just plain *bad* business ideas there are out there). I don't know what they wound up doing to address these, or to what extent it will work. When doing angel investing or VC, the lender has lots of personal contact and the investment is for enough money that there is generally some significant amount of due diligence work done. ("So... does your company actually sell anything?")
Honestly, it doesn't matter if they were in collusion. I could see investigating Amazon for antitrust, given their massive market power, but the book publishers? Even if they were in collusion, there are better ways to spend taxpayer dollars than going after a thin-margin industry that is struggling to adapt to new technology and provides at least some gatekeeping/editing function for many books, not to mention is one of the only industries that promoted reading for pleasure.
There are only a few big publishers left. They operate on tiny margins. It will not help them to be attacked by Justice, and it will not help us to have them be attacked by Justice. At least not yet. Maybe when the industry is stronger.
Europe is going through what the US went through 200 years ago, only European governments have histories going back a millennium so it's harder to create a new federalist government that governs all the states (of Europe). In the U.S., the absence of strong federal government under the articles of confederation made them realize early on that they were doing it wrong, so they drafted the Constitution. They were able to do that because they had just formed the weaker large government a few years ago, so there was less political resistance than there would have been otherwise. And they had the impetus to form a common government because they had just allied against the King, so they were used to functioning together when they first became governments.
Europe was more of a mish-mash that evolved through feudalism and the gunpowder revolution and the infantry revolution, the rise of nationalism and religious wars, etc..., so it took it longer. WW2 provided a common enemy that led to a desire to create stronger international institutions after the failure of the League of Nations to prevent the war. This led to more international cooperation, over time, which--together with a better understanding of economic theory--led to opening markets and opening borders, and the European Union.
The chinese are: 1 - far. 2 - non white. 3 - non americans.
Thus, they are inherently bad. Now it's just a matter of finding out which kind of bad they are.
Terrorists doesn't seem to match, they are way down on the "terrorist-brown scale". So it's obviously either druglords, or spies.
This month we'll try "SPIES!". It it doesn't stick, we'll try "DRUGLORDS!" next month.
As a last resort, it's always possible to go back to "COMMUNISTS!".
Actually, I think your last resort is the point. The United States, although it certainly has problems, has more respect for individual autonomy than China. The First Amendment, though circumscribed, provides massive protections for thought, for political action, and for living the life of a free person. The Fourth likewise provides some, although more limited. And although the U.S. does not have as much respect for Human Rights as a number of players in the international community, it has more than quite a few, including China.
The U.S. also provides markets that are less corrupt, and--amazingly--is often less deferential to corporations than local Chinese authority. Although the regulatory structures around certain areas are hard for business, foreign corporations find it easier to compete in the U.S.
When you turn it into the Nile De-nihilism and accidentally start a literary movement about re-instantiating a dried-up river in a post-apocalyptic world?
Tolkien swore that the LotR books weren't the least bit allegorical, for instance, yet how can you read them without seeing Mordor as 1930s-era Germany?
*tongue-in-cheek* Yes, but my side of debate is right!:)
To my mind, a reader who reads a message in a book that is not explicitly in the text has created a hidden meaning. Even if it is a really obvious hidden meaning. Some readers pick hidden meanings other people would be obscure, too, and even drawing parallels that are obvious can lead you to something an author never intended, since they don't always realize things about their books that other people consider obvious. Sometimes those things reflect subconscious biases or culture of the author, and sometimes they are just coincidences that happen to work out beautifully when you think about them as symbolic or communicative of a message other than the story the author was trying to tell.
On the Tolkien point, I thought his no-world-war-II allegory point about the ring was persuasive--how if it had been allegorical, surely the ring would have been seized and used against Mordor. I don't know (or recall offhand if he said) whether he was talking about the use of the nuclear bomb or other parts of the horrors of that war. Stalin tying the food supply to factory output or killing tens of millions of his people, the United States fighting the war as often as possible (as a rational actor) through proxies via lend-lease, the fire-bombing of Dresden, etc... Also, there were lots of very clear places he drew influence for the story from, such as Milton and Shakespeare.
That being said, WW2 of course is likely to have influenced him at least subconsciously because it created propaganda campaigns and rhetoric which redefined evil, which framed the war and really strengthened the dialog around human rights, resistance, etc...
My thoughts exactly.
Auto graders could check spelling and grammar, and to some extent plagiarism, but without a human reviewing the content, students will learn be gaming the algorithms from day 1.
There are a lot of schools where teachers don't know spelling and grammar. If students learn to game spelling and grammar algorithms in those schools, they will be better off.
Despite all my efforts, in 8 years of English classes, I was never even able to get a single teacher or professor to explain to me how he knew there were hidden meanings behind the text that was assigned. Nor could I get anyone to tell me why they would put hidden meanings into text, when they could put the meaning the want in the literal text.
They lied if they said they knew there were hidden meanings. Unless they're the author, or have read the author saying so, they're creating the hidden meanings. Sometimes there are also great hidden meanings the author didn't intend.
As to why they put hidden meanings--or at least different meanings--into the text, they just to it to provide another way to think about life, about people, about "the human condition." The Scouring of the Shire, for example, was a chapter that I read as having a great message about not using fantasy for escapism but about bringing its messages home to build a better world. If I think about that message--even if it were never intended by the author--I have a different way to look at the story. And maybe I can learn something more from it than I learn from just the plain text.
So you're right--you don't need the other meanings. And a lot of teachers don't teach them very well, and are too rigid about there being a "right" interpretation or "correct" hidden meaning. But the other meanings give you more ideas to accept or reject or learn from.
You can actually place lots of limits on free expression, but there are also very strong lines they cannot cross. So the government can't (usually) censor your march down main street based on the idea you're marching for, but they can do it if you're going to interfere with traffic.
A real crime needs both an aggressor (the initiator of coercion) and a victim (the recipient of coercion). The real crime should be perfectly clear by now. The victim is the insensitive asshole, and the aggressor is government.
Post-WW2, we live in modern regulatory states. These penalize, and sometimes criminalize, regulatory infractions. Deliberate failure to pay taxes, for example, or deliberately structuring your transactions to avoid anti-money-laundering techniques, or driving a vehicle without a license.
Actually, statements of the Crown Prosecutor for the region were statements that pretty clearly indicated their concern was with the deterrence effect, which would suggest that the sole concern was definitely not whether he really deserved all that happened to him because he was a drunk asshole.
"We hope this case will serve as a warning to anyone who may think that comments made online are somehow beyond the law."
I actually disagree with the getting kicked out of school notion more than the liability notion. I could see a misdemeanor for hate speech, so long as there's no misdemeanor if it's political hate speech, but schools are supposed to be places where you value the free exchange of ideas even more than the content of those ideas. At a school, someone using hate speech once or twice should be condemned, and the person should be spoken with, but the person shouldn't be expelled the first time they're a drunken ass.
That's silly. You should have explained to them that you don't need to belong to a social network to understand the concepts. And if they can't understand that, you should grab the nearest large object and bash their head in until they do.
Code Monkey not say it... out loud. Code Monkey not crazy... just proud.
Outlaw coffee and food and drink in the car, and you will find more accidents from sleepy people.
Helpful Disclaimer: this is not based on empirical evidence, but just out of a desire to be able to have food or drink in the car. It is a rationalization in which I assume empirical evidence will bear out anecdotal observations which fit with post-hoc rationalizations that accord with my existing (though only occasional) habits.
Although you can also get branded as being too non-neutral, which can make it harder to get work in a regulatory agency, or can mark your opinions (fairly or not) as biased by the position of the organization you used to work for. Maybe not directing the agency, since those are mostly political employees, but certainly as a worker bee.
Slashdot Mirror
These are corporate profits. Whoever actually owns the company still gets taxed on any of the value that they sell or get dividends on. So apple's rate may be 9.8%, but most people who get the remaining 90% still pay more taxes. Just not usually in the same year.
Production costs for so-called "conventional" farming have high negative externalities--costs that are simply not captured in a yield-per-acre formula, or even a yield-per-dollar forumula.
Which makes this metastudy not particularly useful or meaningful, because without some way of assessing those costs, we don't have enough information to know what is better.
Yes. The Pacific Tsunami Warning System is already fast. I can get earthquake info almost as fast from the USGS as I can from a million people on facebook live-reporting the earthquake.
So this project, while cool, sounds more like a way to get funding than anything else.
If you believe abortion is murder, you may pick Republicans as the lesser of two evils because in the event of a Court Appointee, you save a lot of lives. If you believe a woman's right to control her body is sacrosanct, you may pick Democrats as the lesser of two evils because otherwise you prevent a lot of intolerance.
Either way, you're voting for a government that kills people without trials, in terms of drone targeting. But that doesn't mean there's no difference.
Vote for a third party only if you see it as helping that third party toward a particular objective. Otherwise, campaign for a third party (promote it, whatever), but vote for the lesser of the two big evils. Because third parties are not going to win anytime soon, and if you vote for the third party, you take a vote away from the lesser evil, which makes the greater evil more likely to win.
It would be great if voting for a third party meant they could win. And it would be great if saying nobody who works hard should go bankrupt made it happen. Sadly, life doesn't work that way, and we have to make strategic choices.
Sometimes you partner with a lesser evil to defeat a greater one, or partner with a greater good even though it costs you the ability to make a lesser good manifest.
This is what hyphens are for.
Could also be part of a push to strengthen the FCC, by pointing out to Congress that they need larger sanctions. I.e. they could be doing this to prep for congressional testimony for the next time there's a Communications Act amendment.
Publishers are still needed for editing and marketing, as books rarely become best sellers by themselves. However, the lower cost of digital distribution should mostly go to us, the consumers. If a print book is $10, I want the ebook for $7...
But that's the thing. There really is a value-added service. A small publisher can get his book on Amazon without much trouble at all. Big publishers aren't the gatekeepers they used to be, but they bring in something extra, and they can't collude to keep anyone out of the market. All they can do is raise or lower prices on the books they own the rights to print. They can charge whatever they want for the book, and you can buy it or not buy it--it's not like anticompetitive behavior in gas or oil or telecom or power.
This is because of a new law that passed in the last week or so.
Good news: crowd-sourcing of entrepreneurial dollars for small startups may really help some good companies, particularly where angel investing and venture capital financing are as hard to find as they are right now.
Bad news: there were huge concerns about due diligence/accounting/accountability/regulatory structure/people using this for scams (plus, of course, how many just plain *bad* business ideas there are out there). I don't know what they wound up doing to address these, or to what extent it will work. When doing angel investing or VC, the lender has lots of personal contact and the investment is for enough money that there is generally some significant amount of due diligence work done. ("So... does your company actually sell anything?")
Honestly, it doesn't matter if they were in collusion. I could see investigating Amazon for antitrust, given their massive market power, but the book publishers? Even if they were in collusion, there are better ways to spend taxpayer dollars than going after a thin-margin industry that is struggling to adapt to new technology and provides at least some gatekeeping/editing function for many books, not to mention is one of the only industries that promoted reading for pleasure.
There are only a few big publishers left. They operate on tiny margins. It will not help them to be attacked by Justice, and it will not help us to have them be attacked by Justice. At least not yet. Maybe when the industry is stronger.
Europe is going through what the US went through 200 years ago, only European governments have histories going back a millennium so it's harder to create a new federalist government that governs all the states (of Europe). In the U.S., the absence of strong federal government under the articles of confederation made them realize early on that they were doing it wrong, so they drafted the Constitution. They were able to do that because they had just formed the weaker large government a few years ago, so there was less political resistance than there would have been otherwise. And they had the impetus to form a common government because they had just allied against the King, so they were used to functioning together when they first became governments.
Europe was more of a mish-mash that evolved through feudalism and the gunpowder revolution and the infantry revolution, the rise of nationalism and religious wars, etc..., so it took it longer. WW2 provided a common enemy that led to a desire to create stronger international institutions after the failure of the League of Nations to prevent the war. This led to more international cooperation, over time, which--together with a better understanding of economic theory--led to opening markets and opening borders, and the European Union.
There's a clear difference.
The CIA are americans, thus inherently good.
The chinese are:
1 - far.
2 - non white.
3 - non americans.
Thus, they are inherently bad. Now it's just a matter of finding out which kind of bad they are.
Terrorists doesn't seem to match, they are way down on the "terrorist-brown scale". So it's obviously either druglords, or spies.
This month we'll try "SPIES!". It it doesn't stick, we'll try "DRUGLORDS!" next month.
As a last resort, it's always possible to go back to "COMMUNISTS!".
Actually, I think your last resort is the point. The United States, although it certainly has problems, has more respect for individual autonomy than China. The First Amendment, though circumscribed, provides massive protections for thought, for political action, and for living the life of a free person. The Fourth likewise provides some, although more limited. And although the U.S. does not have as much respect for Human Rights as a number of players in the international community, it has more than quite a few, including China.
The U.S. also provides markets that are less corrupt, and--amazingly--is often less deferential to corporations than local Chinese authority. Although the regulatory structures around certain areas are hard for business, foreign corporations find it easier to compete in the U.S.
the ones who actually sue don't tell you until you're being served.
Not generally true, although true for some. That's what the whole "cease-and-desist" letter thing is about.
Denial Denialism?
Where does that get fun?
When you turn it into the Nile De-nihilism and accidentally start a literary movement about re-instantiating a dried-up river in a post-apocalyptic world?
(Also Plato, obviously, who I think was the first person to have the idea of the ring that turned people invisible as the ultimate corruptor.)
Tolkien swore that the LotR books weren't the least bit allegorical, for instance, yet how can you read them without seeing Mordor as 1930s-era Germany?
*tongue-in-cheek* Yes, but my side of debate is right! :)
To my mind, a reader who reads a message in a book that is not explicitly in the text has created a hidden meaning. Even if it is a really obvious hidden meaning. Some readers pick hidden meanings other people would be obscure, too, and even drawing parallels that are obvious can lead you to something an author never intended, since they don't always realize things about their books that other people consider obvious. Sometimes those things reflect subconscious biases or culture of the author, and sometimes they are just coincidences that happen to work out beautifully when you think about them as symbolic or communicative of a message other than the story the author was trying to tell.
On the Tolkien point, I thought his no-world-war-II allegory point about the ring was persuasive--how if it had been allegorical, surely the ring would have been seized and used against Mordor. I don't know (or recall offhand if he said) whether he was talking about the use of the nuclear bomb or other parts of the horrors of that war. Stalin tying the food supply to factory output or killing tens of millions of his people, the United States fighting the war as often as possible (as a rational actor) through proxies via lend-lease, the fire-bombing of Dresden, etc... Also, there were lots of very clear places he drew influence for the story from, such as Milton and Shakespeare.
That being said, WW2 of course is likely to have influenced him at least subconsciously because it created propaganda campaigns and rhetoric which redefined evil, which framed the war and really strengthened the dialog around human rights, resistance, etc...
My thoughts exactly.
Auto graders could check spelling and grammar, and to some extent plagiarism, but without a human reviewing the content, students will learn be gaming the algorithms from day 1.
There are a lot of schools where teachers don't know spelling and grammar. If students learn to game spelling and grammar algorithms in those schools, they will be better off.
Despite all my efforts, in 8 years of English classes, I was never even able to get a single teacher or professor to explain to me how he knew there were hidden meanings behind the text that was assigned. Nor could I get anyone to tell me why they would put hidden meanings into text, when they could put the meaning the want in the literal text.
They lied if they said they knew there were hidden meanings. Unless they're the author, or have read the author saying so, they're creating the hidden meanings. Sometimes there are also great hidden meanings the author didn't intend.
As to why they put hidden meanings--or at least different meanings--into the text, they just to it to provide another way to think about life, about people, about "the human condition." The Scouring of the Shire, for example, was a chapter that I read as having a great message about not using fantasy for escapism but about bringing its messages home to build a better world. If I think about that message--even if it were never intended by the author--I have a different way to look at the story. And maybe I can learn something more from it than I learn from just the plain text.
So you're right--you don't need the other meanings. And a lot of teachers don't teach them very well, and are too rigid about there being a "right" interpretation or "correct" hidden meaning. But the other meanings give you more ideas to accept or reject or learn from.
You can actually place lots of limits on free expression, but there are also very strong lines they cannot cross. So the government can't (usually) censor your march down main street based on the idea you're marching for, but they can do it if you're going to interfere with traffic.
A real crime needs both an aggressor (the initiator of coercion) and a victim (the recipient of coercion). The real crime should be perfectly clear by now. The victim is the insensitive asshole, and the aggressor is government.
Post-WW2, we live in modern regulatory states. These penalize, and sometimes criminalize, regulatory infractions. Deliberate failure to pay taxes, for example, or deliberately structuring your transactions to avoid anti-money-laundering techniques, or driving a vehicle without a license.
Actually, statements of the Crown Prosecutor for the region were statements that pretty clearly indicated their concern was with the deterrence effect, which would suggest that the sole concern was definitely not whether he really deserved all that happened to him because he was a drunk asshole.
"We hope this case will serve as a warning to anyone who may think that comments made online are somehow beyond the law."
I actually disagree with the getting kicked out of school notion more than the liability notion. I could see a misdemeanor for hate speech, so long as there's no misdemeanor if it's political hate speech, but schools are supposed to be places where you value the free exchange of ideas even more than the content of those ideas. At a school, someone using hate speech once or twice should be condemned, and the person should be spoken with, but the person shouldn't be expelled the first time they're a drunken ass.
That's silly. You should have explained to them that you don't need to belong to a social network to understand the concepts. And if they can't understand that, you should grab the nearest large object and bash their head in until they do.
Code Monkey not say it... out loud. Code Monkey not crazy... just proud.
Outlaw coffee and food and drink in the car, and you will find more accidents from sleepy people.
Helpful Disclaimer: this is not based on empirical evidence, but just out of a desire to be able to have food or drink in the car. It is a rationalization in which I assume empirical evidence will bear out anecdotal observations which fit with post-hoc rationalizations that accord with my existing (though only occasional) habits.
Although you can also get branded as being too non-neutral, which can make it harder to get work in a regulatory agency, or can mark your opinions (fairly or not) as biased by the position of the organization you used to work for. Maybe not directing the agency, since those are mostly political employees, but certainly as a worker bee.
I personally don't like the "should of" either. But sometimes these things creep up on you.
And then you hit them over the head with the brass section of the nearest orchestra.