Lots of people get sick from eating those things as well.
Shellfish allergy is the most common food allergy for adults. Two percent of American adults have a shellfish allergy. 0.1 percent of children have a shellfish allergy.
For people living in a time periord where there was no treatment for a severe allergic reaction these foods could be deadly. Serve a 100 people and 2 people get sick is enough for society to dicorage the practice.
He is not arguing its not disgusting. He is arguing it isn't sociopathic. You would need to provide plenty of links in order to convice me that vegans show more emphathy, are better behaved, and more socially engadged than meat eaters. Also plants are disgusting... because they taste worse than meat.
The tax isn't on programming. It is on the sale of software and the sale of servicing software. If you do everything in house in MA then you don't pay any tax. The whole point is to tax people working in NH, CA, and TX.
Not true. Audits of all kinds are normally expensive. Doing the audit is supposed to prevent waste by creating a risk that curroption will be punished.
Technically the goverment got it correct. Army officers reported unidentified objects they believed to be drones. A branch of the goverment checked and discovered they were planets. So +1 for goverments versus stupid individuals.
I suspect that this is just paid for advertisement for the diner in question. It conveys that the diner is in demand, the diners locations, and that it has resverations.
They are waste. They are basically ways to buy votes. Bills should be voted on for their merits, not because if you vote "yes" you'll get a bridge in your district.
It really depends then on what bill the earmark is attached too. There is generally a big omnibuss spending bill. Earmarks on it are just about deciding what bridges should be built. Earmarks on federal law, wars, supreme court justices are unethical.
I think they are just checking that NASA isn't wasnting money like the IRS did. The IRS used govemerment funds to create Star Trek videos with upper managment in them.
But the point is that any dolphin can make a sound that *specifically* gets the attention of B, and no one else.
There was no evidence of the above. Instead they found
The researchers found that individuals only responded to their own calls, by sounding their whistle back.
To show dolphins have names you would need to find evidence that dolphins mimic each others whistles. You would need to record Dolphin A whistling Dolphin Bs whistle and Dolphin B responding. But they didn't do that.
How would you know if they have been rehabilitated? If they can control it at will then they can just turn it on in the sessions. When they are out of prison they can go back to living how they want.
I remember reading a consumer reports article a year ago stating these touch screen systems were terrible. That in general it took longer to do simple things and it required you look at the screen when operating. Have they improved at all?
Sounds like he doesn't have an employer. No way my boss would let me code something 4 times just so its language neutral. I think its a good idea not to go into the weeds of a programing language.
disconnect between the credit they want us to give them, and what they actually put out
Citation needed. Did Google in their announcement claim these things were open source. Did they make a big speach about open source and then imediately announce these apps and devices? Or are you stiching together marketing they did two, three years ago about the OS with what they did today.
sorta of yes. Amazon was dumping ebooks to kill off hardback book sales. The price of ebooks went up after agency model went into effect. Ebook prices went down after the DOJ got settlements from the publishers. It is also fair to point out that Apple was never in any risk of going out buisness. They have more cash than most countries. It is also worth noting that Borders went under when Agency pricing was in effect. So physical books went away despite colusion by the publishers.
No, it is not illegal to give stuff away. It is only illegal when paired with a monopolist strategy. Example dump cheap tablets until Apple goes out of business. Then raise prices. It is a strategy that only works with competitors with cashflow problems.
Privacy? The goverment is snooping at the ISP level. Coorporations are spying with apps. Your OS isn't going to help much when you can't trust the software or the communication channel.
Toward the end of the hearing, Mark Ryan, a lawyer with the Justice Department, asked if she would be able to share any of her thoughts on the case so far.
Cote then gave what she called her "tentative view," which she said was based largely on material submitted as evidence - emails and correspondence that took place over a six-week period between December 2009 and January 2010.
She emphasized that no final decision would be made until after the trial takes place. And she also said she had not read many of the affidavits submitted in support of the parties' positions.
so not really required by law. she could of said something like "its too early to say".
Doesn't matter what you want to call it. Prices go up. Curruption of goverment occurs. All of this leads to riots in the streets. As seen in Tunisia and countless other countries throughtout history.
People have a right to a legal system that doesn't create monopolies. Involving the government by writing contracts partially nullifies your argument. Is a person "interacting voluntarily" when they are sued over violating a "Most Favored Nation" clause? Apple didn't just create a Trust. They created a Trust they hoped had the force of government behind it. They wanted a Trust that would prevent Amazon from competing out of fear of lawsuits.
Apple was using contracts to enforce a price increase. Contracts are enforced by the government. Governments enforce contracts with violence and by taking property. It is not in the government's interest to raise prices. Thus we have this lawsuit that effectively voids the contracts. Without the force of the contracts this scheme won't work.
This is 100% true. I don't think I've ever seen a Judge say something like this one did. Seem 100% guarantee of a new trial upon apeal.
Not true. His statement was at a hearing to decide if the case would be thrown out because of lack of evidence. The Judge simply stated the feds had evidence. The Judge made his statement because Apple asked for his opinion at that point. He was required by law to say something.
Slashdot Mirror
Shellfish allergy is the most common food allergy for adults. Two percent of American adults have a shellfish allergy. 0.1 percent of children have a shellfish allergy.
For people living in a time periord where there was no treatment for a severe allergic reaction these foods could be deadly. Serve a 100 people and 2 people get sick is enough for society to dicorage the practice.
He is not arguing its not disgusting. He is arguing it isn't sociopathic. You would need to provide plenty of links in order to convice me that vegans show more emphathy, are better behaved, and more socially engadged than meat eaters. Also plants are disgusting... because they taste worse than meat.
The tax isn't on programming. It is on the sale of software and the sale of servicing software. If you do everything in house in MA then you don't pay any tax. The whole point is to tax people working in NH, CA, and TX.
They want to shift the tax burden to poeple not living in Massachusetts. Most of the income is earned out of state. (California)
Not true. Audits of all kinds are normally expensive. Doing the audit is supposed to prevent waste by creating a risk that curroption will be punished.
Technically the goverment got it correct. Army officers reported unidentified objects they believed to be drones. A branch of the goverment checked and discovered they were planets. So +1 for goverments versus stupid individuals.
I suspect that this is just paid for advertisement for the diner in question. It conveys that the diner is in demand, the diners locations, and that it has resverations.
They are waste. They are basically ways to buy votes. Bills should be voted on for their merits, not because if you vote "yes" you'll get a bridge in your district.
It really depends then on what bill the earmark is attached too. There is generally a big omnibuss spending bill. Earmarks on it are just about deciding what bridges should be built. Earmarks on federal law, wars, supreme court justices are unethical.
I think they are just checking that NASA isn't wasnting money like the IRS did. The IRS used govemerment funds to create Star Trek videos with upper managment in them.
But the point is that any dolphin can make a sound that *specifically* gets the attention of B, and no one else.
There was no evidence of the above. Instead they found
The researchers found that individuals only responded to their own calls, by sounding their whistle back.
To show dolphins have names you would need to find evidence that dolphins mimic each others whistles. You would need to record Dolphin A whistling Dolphin Bs whistle and Dolphin B responding. But they didn't do that.
There is no known treatment for Psychopathy. It may not even be a mental illness. It not something that can be fixed by throwing doctors at it.
Is being a "psychopath" really just an old term that means "sociopath"
Yes they are both old terms that mean the same thing that describes people who wind up in prison.
How would you know if they have been rehabilitated? If they can control it at will then they can just turn it on in the sessions. When they are out of prison they can go back to living how they want.
I remember reading a consumer reports article a year ago stating these touch screen systems were terrible. That in general it took longer to do simple things and it required you look at the screen when operating. Have they improved at all?
Sounds like he doesn't have an employer. No way my boss would let me code something 4 times just so its language neutral. I think its a good idea not to go into the weeds of a programing language.
disconnect between the credit they want us to give them, and what they actually put out
Citation needed. Did Google in their announcement claim these things were open source. Did they make a big speach about open source and then imediately announce these apps and devices? Or are you stiching together marketing they did two, three years ago about the OS with what they did today.
sorta of yes. Amazon was dumping ebooks to kill off hardback book sales. The price of ebooks went up after agency model went into effect. Ebook prices went down after the DOJ got settlements from the publishers. It is also fair to point out that Apple was never in any risk of going out buisness. They have more cash than most countries. It is also worth noting that Borders went under when Agency pricing was in effect. So physical books went away despite colusion by the publishers.
No, it is not illegal to give stuff away. It is only illegal when paired with a monopolist strategy. Example dump cheap tablets until Apple goes out of business. Then raise prices. It is a strategy that only works with competitors with cashflow problems.
To be fair fighter planes have a long history of being death traps.
Privacy? The goverment is snooping at the ISP level. Coorporations are spying with apps. Your OS isn't going to help much when you can't trust the software or the communication channel.
Toward the end of the hearing, Mark Ryan, a lawyer with the Justice Department, asked if she would be able to share any of her thoughts on the case so far. Cote then gave what she called her "tentative view," which she said was based largely on material submitted as evidence - emails and correspondence that took place over a six-week period between December 2009 and January 2010. She emphasized that no final decision would be made until after the trial takes place. And she also said she had not read many of the affidavits submitted in support of the parties' positions.
so not really required by law. she could of said something like "its too early to say".
Doesn't matter what you want to call it. Prices go up. Curruption of goverment occurs. All of this leads to riots in the streets. As seen in Tunisia and countless other countries throughtout history.
without violating the rights of others
People have a right to a legal system that doesn't create monopolies. Involving the government by writing contracts partially nullifies your argument. Is a person "interacting voluntarily" when they are sued over violating a "Most Favored Nation" clause? Apple didn't just create a Trust. They created a Trust they hoped had the force of government behind it. They wanted a Trust that would prevent Amazon from competing out of fear of lawsuits.
Apple was using contracts to enforce a price increase. Contracts are enforced by the government. Governments enforce contracts with violence and by taking property. It is not in the government's interest to raise prices. Thus we have this lawsuit that effectively voids the contracts. Without the force of the contracts this scheme won't work.
This is 100% true. I don't think I've ever seen a Judge say something like this one did. Seem 100% guarantee of a new trial upon apeal.
Not true. His statement was at a hearing to decide if the case would be thrown out because of lack of evidence. The Judge simply stated the feds had evidence. The Judge made his statement because Apple asked for his opinion at that point. He was required by law to say something.