Actually, it's comments like that which lead to stupid devices like computers with built in screens.
The problem is that you want to upgrade the computer, and keep the screen. Not the other way around. Screens last decades, and cost more than the rest of the system. The rest of the computer becomes obsolete quickly...
Either way, the point is moot. Upgrading your system doesn't void the warranty, and people actually like the all in one units.
If somebody makes just enough to buy necessities in a jurisdiction where necessities are not subject to sales tax, their sales tax is zero. Anybody who makes optional, luxury purchases (which by definition means they are more wealthy than the person who can afford only necessities) will have a non zero tax rate. A higher tax rate for more wealthy people, hence the tax is progressive. Distinguishing based the ratios of money spent on goods over services is a distraction from this simple fact.
What incentive would The Public have had to build all that infrastructure and to advance knowledge to the point where a big pharmaceutical company could make excessive profits on a lifesaving drug?
Judging from human nature, and human history, you've got two choices: The Carrot (to possibility of some day being enormously wealthy... Or at least to be somewhat wealthy), and The Stick (some form of totalitarian regime).
How quickly The Public seems to have forgotten that we chose the carrot. At the very least we could realize that many societies have, and continue to prefer the carrot to the stick.
Be careful when you begrudge that which makes your lifestyle possible. (Yes. your lifestyle. You did, after all, use a computer to post your comment, so I'm making zero assumptions about your lifestyle when I say it was enabled by the same framework which creates those you begrudge.)
What makes you think the contents of one warehouse is a significant hit over the long term costs of being forced to do the government's dirty work for them? (Not to mention the loss of business associated with being forced to become the tax collector?)
How is moving to a locality with different rules "cheating"?
Your logic is exactly the kind of logic that has led many states into economic trouble.
Second, that subsidiary is paying for the services mentioned above by way of corporate / property / employment taxes, etc. True, not as much as the local hardware store down the street that charges sales tax as well, but they are paying the lion's share.
They're actually probably paying *more* than the local hardware store down the street. This is because the local hardware store doesn't pay sales tax either (purchases for resale are exempt). They do, however, *collect* sales taxes from their customers. It is wrong to attribute those as paid by the store, though.
How popular would this guy be if he didn't spin the facts though? He'd have to tell people that *they* should be paying more taxes, instead of implying (read: lying) to people that some faceless corporate entity should be paying more taxes.
No... They'll just move their warehouse to another jurisdiction, depriving the original locality of income taxes from all the laid off workers, corporate taxes, property taxes, fees, and payroll taxes. (and probably creating unemployment liabilities)
There's a saying that comes to mind when the frequent topic of heaping the responsibility of poor governmental fiscal decisions on corporations comes up. It's: "Biting the hand that feeds you".
It's not that big companies get to make the laws... It's that governments need to realize that their decisions have consequences.
Why shouldn't a company move their operations to an area where the local authorities are going to take a smaller cut of their profits, or impose a lower overhead on their operations? Those other governments seem to do just fine without the additional revenue...
How many steps does it take to set up Wi-Fi on the manufacturer-supported linux distribution for the Xbox 360 (bonus for including the number of steps required on the basic or arcade editions)?
It sounded to me like he was saying that there is some good in there too... You know... 'cause so many people just assume it's all evil at this point...
And when you realize that, it kinda makes your second paragraph, the one that is based on words you put in his mouth, make you sound like a bit of a dick.
Are you sure you didn't let a bit of bias through? You said it "doesn't matter", but I think it did.
The idea of solving police corruption by arming anyone, instead of ensuring the police are themselves policed, is pretty retarded. Instead? Let me translate what you said, so you can see why it sounds rediculous:
"The idea of solving police corruption by ensuring the police are themselves policed, instead of ensuring the police are themselves policed, is pretty retarded."
Are you somehow under the impression that a corrupt police force with the power to use deadly force wouldn't use that force to stop somebody who tries to hold them accountable?
A tyrannical US Government would not maintain the full loyalty of the US armed forces. It wouldn't even maintain the full loyalty of every state in the country (where the munitions of the US military are largely stored).
Anybody who thinks a civilian force couldn't overthrow a tyrannical government has a very quaint definition of what 'tyrannical' means.
(Hint: a government that will voluntarily relinquish power after a lost election, or the expiration of a term limit doesn't qualify.)
It's only a danger to you if they shoot you with them.
Using your property analogy, it would be like saying people should have their legs taken away because they may use them to walk onto your property uninvited.
You'll have to explain better how somebody merely owning a gun limits somebody else's freedoms. You haven't convinced me. (You have, however, convinced me that my original comment about tenuous attempts to justify gun control support being inevitable was spot-on.)
Actually, the only people who would do that are they types who steamroll any political discussion off topic and instead discuss their pet issue. But then, those people get modded to plus 5, and this is going to get modded as flamebait, even though it's the truth.
Now we get to hear from a bunch of people who normally bitch about the government taking away individual freedoms try to justify their hypocrisy while they argue for gun control, and how the supreme court wasn't thinking of the children...
Incidentally, you talked yourself into the exact same misunderstanding of the data as the parent by latching on to that one sentence instead of reading my entire comment. The whole point was that watt-hours and joules are *not* what he was looking for there.
The terminology I should have used was that time is factored out of the watts unit. So from a pedantic perspective (which I appreciate), I misspoke. But from reading the rest of my comment you should be able to tell that I got the math and the definition (which I spelled out right there) correct.
I can hardly believe that the router mentioned was using 8 watts, what is the time period there? I know the power supply on my linksys router is in the milliamps so, basic conversion would indicate to me that is not possible. I am probably thinking of something backwards though. Time is a component of the "watts" unit. One watt is one joule per second. So the time period is irrelevant.
How convenient for you that you only took a portion of what I said and ignored half the meaning.
You disagree with me, but I haven't met you.
Visual Studio is... Well let's just say I don't understand why people are so obsessed with it. Yeah, it's the best C++ IDE. I completely agree with that statement. But who cares if it's "integrated"? It has a sub-par editor, and a sub-par debugger compared to other products on the market... So I always end up using a non-integrated environment. I also find that any difference in documentation quality is more than offset by the availability of source. It's nice to be able to solve a problem caused by a library or documentation bug yourself instead of paying to wait for Microsoft to get back to you, or worrying about calling in the first place because your MSDN subscription only has so many calls left...
You also completely neglect Java, which has an IDE that rivals Visual Studio, better documentation, etc..
The real problem here is that stupid people (including whoever posted this, I assume) don't actually know what a scientist is.
Who takes this oath? Under what authority? Do you have to have a degree to be considered a scientist now? A BS? A PhD? What?
This only works if a scientist is some genius in a lab coat with thick glasses that lives in a lab all day, and that you've never met. In real life many, many people would be considered a scientist. Yet the media continues to use the term "scientist" to describe somebody as if it's some sort of credential. That leads people into the sorts of misunderstandings about what and who scientists are that create idiotic ideas like an 'oath' for them to take.
Disclaimer: Some people would consider me to be a scientist, and I have a degree that suggests it is a valid qualification. I'm also hard-working, love what I do, and am ethically concerned about what I do, but I'm entirely in it for the money.
"When is it acceptable to encourage users to accept a self-signed SSL cert?"
The answer is: Never.
What is the point of being sure that no one can intercept your communication all the way from your browser to the server if you don't know who you are talking to in the first place?
Are you being dramatic, or do you really mean "never"? There *is* a way to verify who you are talking to. You can compare the key signatures. The only reason *not* to use a self-signed key is if you want some third party to do the validation for you instead of doing it yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's comments like that which lead to stupid devices like computers with built in screens.
The problem is that you want to upgrade the computer, and keep the screen. Not the other way around. Screens last decades, and cost more than the rest of the system. The rest of the computer becomes obsolete quickly...
Either way, the point is moot. Upgrading your system doesn't void the warranty, and people actually like the all in one units.
How is that relevant, exactly?
If somebody makes just enough to buy necessities in a jurisdiction where necessities are not subject to sales tax, their sales tax is zero. Anybody who makes optional, luxury purchases (which by definition means they are more wealthy than the person who can afford only necessities) will have a non zero tax rate. A higher tax rate for more wealthy people, hence the tax is progressive. Distinguishing based the ratios of money spent on goods over services is a distraction from this simple fact.
You can only stand on the shoulders of giants if you make it worthwhile for the giant to bother to stand up in the first place.
What incentive would The Public have had to build all that infrastructure and to advance knowledge to the point where a big pharmaceutical company could make excessive profits on a lifesaving drug?
Judging from human nature, and human history, you've got two choices: The Carrot (to possibility of some day being enormously wealthy... Or at least to be somewhat wealthy), and The Stick (some form of totalitarian regime).
How quickly The Public seems to have forgotten that we chose the carrot. At the very least we could realize that many societies have, and continue to prefer the carrot to the stick.
Be careful when you begrudge that which makes your lifestyle possible. (Yes. your lifestyle. You did, after all, use a computer to post your comment, so I'm making zero assumptions about your lifestyle when I say it was enabled by the same framework which creates those you begrudge.)
What makes you think the contents of one warehouse is a significant hit over the long term costs of being forced to do the government's dirty work for them? (Not to mention the loss of business associated with being forced to become the tax collector?)
How is moving to a locality with different rules "cheating"?
Your logic is exactly the kind of logic that has led many states into economic trouble.
Second, that subsidiary is paying for the services mentioned above by way of corporate / property / employment taxes, etc. True, not as much as the local hardware store down the street that charges sales tax as well, but they are paying the lion's share.
They're actually probably paying *more* than the local hardware store down the street. This is because the local hardware store doesn't pay sales tax either (purchases for resale are exempt). They do, however, *collect* sales taxes from their customers. It is wrong to attribute those as paid by the store, though.
How popular would this guy be if he didn't spin the facts though? He'd have to tell people that *they* should be paying more taxes, instead of implying (read: lying) to people that some faceless corporate entity should be paying more taxes.
No... They'll just move their warehouse to another jurisdiction, depriving the original locality of income taxes from all the laid off workers, corporate taxes, property taxes, fees, and payroll taxes. (and probably creating unemployment liabilities)
There's a saying that comes to mind when the frequent topic of heaping the responsibility of poor governmental fiscal decisions on corporations comes up. It's: "Biting the hand that feeds you".
It's not that big companies get to make the laws... It's that governments need to realize that their decisions have consequences.
Why shouldn't a company move their operations to an area where the local authorities are going to take a smaller cut of their profits, or impose a lower overhead on their operations? Those other governments seem to do just fine without the additional revenue...
It's actually progressive, since necessities are usually excluded from the sales tax. Thus people with more expended disposable income are taxed more.
How many steps does it take to set up Wi-Fi on the manufacturer-supported linux distribution for the Xbox 360 (bonus for including the number of steps required on the basic or arcade editions)?
You sound like a neo-con at the end of the Clinton administration.
The republicans did recently relinquish control of congress after a lost election....
It sounded to me like he was saying that there is some good in there too... You know... 'cause so many people just assume it's all evil at this point...
And when you realize that, it kinda makes your second paragraph, the one that is based on words you put in his mouth, make you sound like a bit of a dick.
Are you sure you didn't let a bit of bias through? You said it "doesn't matter", but I think it did.
"The idea of solving police corruption by ensuring the police are themselves policed, instead of ensuring the police are themselves policed, is pretty retarded."
Are you somehow under the impression that a corrupt police force with the power to use deadly force wouldn't use that force to stop somebody who tries to hold them accountable?
A tyrannical US Government would not maintain the full loyalty of the US armed forces. It wouldn't even maintain the full loyalty of every state in the country (where the munitions of the US military are largely stored).
Anybody who thinks a civilian force couldn't overthrow a tyrannical government has a very quaint definition of what 'tyrannical' means.
(Hint: a government that will voluntarily relinquish power after a lost election, or the expiration of a term limit doesn't qualify.)
It's only a danger to you if they shoot you with them.
Using your property analogy, it would be like saying people should have their legs taken away because they may use them to walk onto your property uninvited.
You'll have to explain better how somebody merely owning a gun limits somebody else's freedoms. You haven't convinced me. (You have, however, convinced me that my original comment about tenuous attempts to justify gun control support being inevitable was spot-on.)
Instead of letting people own/register a TLD, they should have just let people register domains in *any* TLD.
Actually, the only people who would do that are they types who steamroll any political discussion off topic and instead discuss their pet issue. But then, those people get modded to plus 5, and this is going to get modded as flamebait, even though it's the truth.
Now we get to hear from a bunch of people who normally bitch about the government taking away individual freedoms try to justify their hypocrisy while they argue for gun control, and how the supreme court wasn't thinking of the children...
Incidentally, you talked yourself into the exact same misunderstanding of the data as the parent by latching on to that one sentence instead of reading my entire comment. The whole point was that watt-hours and joules are *not* what he was looking for there.
The terminology I should have used was that time is factored out of the watts unit. So from a pedantic perspective (which I appreciate), I misspoke. But from reading the rest of my comment you should be able to tell that I got the math and the definition (which I spelled out right there) correct.
8 watts at 120 volts (simplistically speaking) would only be about 66 milliamps.
How convenient for you that you only took a portion of what I said and ignored half the meaning.
You disagree with me, but I haven't met you.
Visual Studio is... Well let's just say I don't understand why people are so obsessed with it. Yeah, it's the best C++ IDE. I completely agree with that statement. But who cares if it's "integrated"? It has a sub-par editor, and a sub-par debugger compared to other products on the market... So I always end up using a non-integrated environment. I also find that any difference in documentation quality is more than offset by the availability of source. It's nice to be able to solve a problem caused by a library or documentation bug yourself instead of paying to wait for Microsoft to get back to you, or worrying about calling in the first place because your MSDN subscription only has so many calls left...
You also completely neglect Java, which has an IDE that rivals Visual Studio, better documentation, etc..
The real problem here is that stupid people (including whoever posted this, I assume) don't actually know what a scientist is.
Who takes this oath? Under what authority? Do you have to have a degree to be considered a scientist now? A BS? A PhD? What?
This only works if a scientist is some genius in a lab coat with thick glasses that lives in a lab all day, and that you've never met. In real life many, many people would be considered a scientist. Yet the media continues to use the term "scientist" to describe somebody as if it's some sort of credential. That leads people into the sorts of misunderstandings about what and who scientists are that create idiotic ideas like an 'oath' for them to take.
Disclaimer: Some people would consider me to be a scientist, and I have a degree that suggests it is a valid qualification. I'm also hard-working, love what I do, and am ethically concerned about what I do, but I'm entirely in it for the money.
The answer is: Never.
What is the point of being sure that no one can intercept your communication all the way from your browser to the server if you don't know who you are talking to in the first place?
Are you being dramatic, or do you really mean "never"? There *is* a way to verify who you are talking to. You can compare the key signatures. The only reason *not* to use a self-signed key is if you want some third party to do the validation for you instead of doing it yourself.Sorry, I should have said "perceived as less awful"...
Since he signed the prescription drug plan bill, it actually turned out that he was just as terrible as people were afraid Kerry would be.