If the tides were turned.
If California were Red...
And Wyoming Blue...
Jeff Bezzon's Puppet
The WA-post paper
Would sing high praises
Of the that old bargin
The Connecticut Compromise
You see no politician has true principles, except for the principle of seeking more power.
You are both wrong. The heights of apple trees are controlled largely by the root-stock they are grafted on. Commercial apples genetic potential is actually rather quite tall. It is not the result of intentional genetic manipulation, but intentional chimerazation. (making of a chimera), which is in some ways weirder and stranger. Aggressive pruning doesn't control height that well because trees, will respond through more vigorous vegetation growth the next year due to an deficit of auxins, especially tendiing to induce water sproutsin apple species, which weaken the structural integrity of the tree, and if not managed (management sometimes induces the same response all over again), then airflow in the canopy in inhibited and fungal pathogens become more of a problem.
Civil law is still law, and creates real enforceable duties. There is a cause of action called tortious interference which occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff's contractual or other business relationships. Why is the contract of marriage any less worth defending?
For FPU it depends on what kind of operation. New high-end intel SKU's are supporting AVX512, whereas Zen will only support AVX 256 natively, However very few consumer application would notice the difference anyways. Zen is an entirely new design and shouldn't suffer the crippling FPU limitation of Bulldozer and it's refinements.
The thing is right now, as far as I understand it, APU's are largely memory bandwidth limited for game performance rather than silicon limited, hence why Intel put 128MB of L4 (eDRAM) on thier Iris Pro lineup. There's also a potential console market as well. The Heterogeneous Compute Environment IS AMD's wet dream, but if they come up with the fast APU-APU and APU-GPU interconnect fabric to make it happen, I'd imagine that it would end up in an enthusiast system sooner rather than later.
First off this sentence by sentence thing is pretty annoying, I would prefer if you used paragraphs and skipped the majority of the quotes. A sentence by sentence rebuttal is pedantic, and these comments are threaded anyways so people can go back and read the prior comment
The corruptibility of the system is an argument for simplification and for bringing the rates in line with comparable countries. Any corporation that actually paid the 39.1% (average combined federal + state rate) would fail in the world marketplace, and hence the large incentive to influence the system in their favor. Additionally a lot of tax avoidance is done through international subsidiaries, a sign that domestic tax burdens are unusually high. 39.1 percent is the third highest rate in the world. If you were in charge of an international corporation you'd be doing everything you could to avoid is as well
Corporation and other business firms are essentially organization for the transformation of capital into profit. Not all firms in the market are price-setters, many are price takers. Nonetheless among firms that set prices the strategy of revenue maximization is rare and are associated with extremely thin margins and are pursued to gain a market-share or other long-term advantage. Most price-setters take the profit maximizing strategy, which as you describe sets prices as to maximize the proportion of revenue to marginal costs. Nonetheless the story does not end when this quarter's profits are made. High margins are signals that encourage investors and new entrants into that market. Low margins will drive investment elsewhere. (Any economic analysis mush include both eh seen and unseen, the immediate and the longterm.) " As Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton Administration, explained in a Brookings Institution paper, “Although unsophisticated observers focus on the distinction between tax relief for business and for individuals, all taxes are ultimately borne by individuals in their role as labor suppliers, consumers, or suppliers of capital.” Hence, it is difficult to apply the concept of tax fairness to corporations. Any tax imposed on corporations results in either a reduction to employee wages, an increase in costs passed on to consumers, a reduction in the return to capital received by shareholders, or a combination of all three." - Joint Economic Council Study, May 2005 https://www.jec.senate.gov/pub...
>"Citizens against government waste". Why not go all-out and cite Grover Norquist and Ayn Rand?
Because the government never has any wast to redundancy? They cite primary sources including the congressional budget office and explain the difference in methodology from the FSC, mainly in correcting for the value of fringe benefits. They are consistent with the CBO analysis and other independent sources. in treating the question as total renumeration rather than as simply nominal salary
As an employer, you'd know theres a large cost in finding, hiring, and training new employees. It can take six months to a year for productivity to cover these costs. A job offer from another employer is often all the leverage you need. Unless you're talking about mind-numbing shift work that anyone with and IQ over 65 can do. Even then such work is being increasingly automated. I've also never had a job where I've said "A little more bureaucracy just what this job needs" Unions have been shrinking in the private sector because they are increasingly irrelevant.
>Another zombie talking point. You guys really think that once you'd join a union, you'd really stand around and think "boy, I wish Bob would start slacking off so I can do my job plus his!" And there is nothing about unions that prevents people from being fired with cause.
There are still alienation of affection cases in civil law wherein the other spouse can sue you for sleeping with their spouse. And anyways puts you at risk of being on the wrong end of a fault divorce.
Consider this benchmark. http://www.anandtech.com/bench... wherin the 6900k K beaks the same clocked and cored Piledriver by about 300%. So what is proven in this benchmark -Zen has a 50% IPC improvement for CineBench, and that it's SMT (symmetric multi-threading) solution scales quite well in the benchmark.
I doubt the price point of $189 The high-bin four-core eight-thread SKU will probably come out at that price to compete with haswell and skylake i5's. Double and then some say $489 for the eight-core to compete with broadwell-E. There will probably be a 6-core SKU made more the 8-core where one or two cores didn't pass quality control for around $299 to compete with some of the desktop i7's. (poorly in single threaded performance anyways, but should do well in parallel test especially DX12 or Vulkan games. AMD really needs cash flow now and won't want to get into a price war. Anyways I think the heavy hitter will be Zen APU's with Polaris and HBM2 likely the drop Q3 next year.
Considering that all of the top Social Media sites used in the UK (http://wearesocial.com/uk/blog/2015/02/uks-top-social-networks) are based in the USA, such sites are subject to the laws and legal precedents of the USA. Yet that's not the point. In order to have the full benefits of free speech (a vibrant marketplace of ideas), you ought allow anonymity precisely because it lowers the barriers of entry for any on those ideas into the marketplace. China is still under the control of the communist party, which explicitly suppresses competing ideas because the endanger the party narrative, not because they care about protecting the vanity of teen girls that can't handle people telling them their hair is ugly. The truth is the Internet (defined as an end to end, peer to peer network) is and has been a great leveler of ideas, which is driving the elite of all nations to look for any excuse to gain a greater control of it.
Freedom of speech includes freedom to speak under pseudonyms, or anonymously. While real ID may prevent many things that ought not be said, it also stops many thing that ought be said.
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n 514 U.S. 334, 357 (1995),
"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation—and their ideas from suppression—at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse."
Corporation don't pay taxes really anyways, because 1. They are fictional entities, and 2. Costs get passed down into first-order (consumer) goods for the most part anyways, Additionally the. U.S has an absurdly high top corporate rate. (40% vs 15-20 of most other similarly industrial nations), and is a large reason why U.S corporation keep as much money and revenue overseas as they can.
Most of what you mention is just sort of normal compensation and can be negotiated individually as appropriate (Or just look at average private-sector compensation as a baseline) . This due process thing is precisely what a lot of the best and brightest in the public sector object to, as it makes it difficult of impossible to remove low-performers and inappropriate behaviors. Why should someone be forced to support a group that advocates for policies they think are harmful or unnecessary in order to keep their job? What you call freeloading, is just a pejorative term applied to a positive externality. Unions pushed for the eight hour workday and made it the norm, but does every worker with a 8-hour day ow the Wobblies a union due? No, they did it to benefit themselves, and they did see the benefit, the setting of that social norm was just gravy.
Like being able to say you boss on on Dec 23. "I know you knew this project needed done by the end of the year two month ago, but didn't tell me you wanted me to do it until right now. However holiday with my family just isn't that important, so I'd love spending the next week furiously working on it 16 hours a day without help from any of my coworkers take the blame when the project fails horribly when moved to a production server "
Better than unions, are business structures that lack such a stark opposition in the first place... worker owned and cooperatives, Or in the S-corp form, limiting the sale of voting stock to not more than 10% per month, and no sales of such stocks held less than 1 year. Where imbalances exist Unions are the tool for the worker. On the other hand because Unions are meant to counter short-term corporate greed, we should be fairly skeptical of public sector unions either by prohibiting any political activity thereby, or allowing public employees that disagree with the overall activity and direction of the union to opt out of all fees.
Seriously, someone should start a service where you can pay $1.00 to robocall every politician that purportedly represents you, and deliver a custom message of your choosing. $2.00 for premium voices, like Indian support center guy, or the annoying chick from you navigation app (you know the one).
No, blacklists are a poor idea security wise, as it's the threat you don't know that you need to worry about. A default deny policy for ads and scripts from domains you don't explicitly trust is the better security policy.
Control = responsibility. The ultimate decision weather to serve an advert or not, lies with the domain controller., and thus the ultimate responsibility.
Make the primary site liable to malware served through it. In effect this will force ad networks to offer indemnification policies on their ads, and the pointy hair types will finally see a reason to properly screen and sandbox advertisements.
Copyright law doesn't clearly provide a mechanism to release works to the public domain. If it actually doesn't provide that mechanism, Ms. High-smith still holds copyright, and what sher gave away was in effect a royal-free license to every member of the public that chose to accept it. If copyright does give you the right to commit works to the public domain, a third-parties claim of copyright on the same work, is a violation of the original parties copyright by which they committed the work to the public domain. A third party claiming copyright explicit interferes with the original artists desire for the work to be freely available.
Even the link you gave noted to controversy around grants to the public domain. "The public" is not a legal entity, has no legal identity, not property, no standing in any court, nor capacity to enter into any contracts or agreements. Gifting anything to "the public" is an absurdity and should not be interpreted as such, but rather a grant of license to all members of the public while keeping the original copyright nominally intact. until it would naturally expire . Such interpretation would sever most rights under copyright, but by keeping nominal claims the owner may have standing in some cases in order to make the "public domain grant" have more teeth legally speaking.
TLDR; public domain is messy, and an artist is much better served with explicit public licenses, rather than a nebulous and legally dubious concept such as a grant into the public domain.
Actually DMCA notices to be valid mush be signed "under penalty of perjury", and require a statment the sender is the copyright holder, or is authorized by the copyright holder of the work to send the notice. How the hell can anyone send out a valid DMCA notice, large company or not, without being have a prima fascia full copyright information about the work in question
Fasle, keyword: Moral rights. Secondly even if copyright give you the ability to effectively release the work into the public domain (which is actually doubtful) Getty by claiming copyright over the images, violated the very copyright which allowed Ms. Highsmith to commit the images to the public domain.
Doesn't matter, they should have known. Being in the copyright business, they have no excuse not to know the law, and now excuse not to check for error.
An algorithmic conversion doesn't create a new copyright, especially if the algorithm is available to the public as it makes it likely two people would make the same conversion. Moreover the whole line of argument is bullshit precisely because Getty themselves failed to distinguish between copied of the work they purportedly "licensed" and those distributed by the plaintiff.
Slashdot Mirror
If the tides were turned.
If California were Red...
And Wyoming Blue...
Jeff Bezzon's Puppet
The WA-post paper
Would sing high praises
Of the that old bargin
The Connecticut Compromise
You see no politician has true principles, except for the principle of seeking more power.
You are both wrong. The heights of apple trees are controlled largely by the root-stock they are grafted on. Commercial apples genetic potential is actually rather quite tall. It is not the result of intentional genetic manipulation, but intentional chimerazation. (making of a chimera), which is in some ways weirder and stranger. Aggressive pruning doesn't control height that well because trees, will respond through more vigorous vegetation growth the next year due to an deficit of auxins, especially tendiing to induce water sproutsin apple species, which weaken the structural integrity of the tree, and if not managed (management sometimes induces the same response all over again), then airflow in the canopy in inhibited and fungal pathogens become more of a problem.
... than those of business'.
Civil law is still law, and creates real enforceable duties. There is a cause of action called tortious interference which occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff's contractual or other business relationships. Why is the contract of marriage any less worth defending?
For FPU it depends on what kind of operation. New high-end intel SKU's are supporting AVX512, whereas Zen will only support AVX 256 natively, However very few consumer application would notice the difference anyways. Zen is an entirely new design and shouldn't suffer the crippling FPU limitation of Bulldozer and it's refinements.
The thing is right now, as far as I understand it, APU's are largely memory bandwidth limited for game performance rather than silicon limited, hence why Intel put 128MB of L4 (eDRAM) on thier Iris Pro lineup. There's also a potential console market as well. The Heterogeneous Compute Environment IS AMD's wet dream, but if they come up with the fast APU-APU and APU-GPU interconnect fabric to make it happen, I'd imagine that it would end up in an enthusiast system sooner rather than later.
First off this sentence by sentence thing is pretty annoying, I would prefer if you used paragraphs and skipped the majority of the quotes. A sentence by sentence rebuttal is pedantic, and these comments are threaded anyways so people can go back and read the prior comment
The corruptibility of the system is an argument for simplification and for bringing the rates in line with comparable countries. Any corporation that actually paid the 39.1% (average combined federal + state rate) would fail in the world marketplace, and hence the large incentive to influence the system in their favor. Additionally a lot of tax avoidance is done through international subsidiaries, a sign that domestic tax burdens are unusually high. 39.1 percent is the third highest rate in the world. If you were in charge of an international corporation you'd be doing everything you could to avoid is as well
Corporation and other business firms are essentially organization for the transformation of capital into profit. Not all firms in the market are price-setters, many are price takers. Nonetheless among firms that set prices the strategy of revenue maximization is rare and are associated with extremely thin margins and are pursued to gain a market-share or other long-term advantage. Most price-setters take the profit maximizing strategy, which as you describe sets prices as to maximize the proportion of revenue to marginal costs. Nonetheless the story does not end when this quarter's profits are made. High margins are signals that encourage investors and new entrants into that market. Low margins will drive investment elsewhere. (Any economic analysis mush include both eh seen and unseen, the immediate and the longterm.) " As Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton Administration, explained in a Brookings Institution paper, “Although unsophisticated observers focus on the distinction between tax relief for business and for individuals, all taxes are ultimately borne by individuals in their role as labor suppliers, consumers, or suppliers of capital.” Hence, it is difficult to apply the concept of tax fairness to corporations. Any tax imposed on corporations results in either a reduction to employee wages, an increase in costs passed on to consumers, a reduction in the return to capital received by shareholders, or a combination of all three." - Joint Economic Council Study, May 2005 https://www.jec.senate.gov/pub...
>"Citizens against government waste". Why not go all-out and cite Grover Norquist and Ayn Rand?
Because the government never has any wast to redundancy? They cite primary sources including the congressional budget office and explain the difference in methodology from the FSC, mainly in correcting for the value of fringe benefits. They are consistent with the CBO analysis and other independent sources. in treating the question as total renumeration rather than as simply nominal salary
As an employer, you'd know theres a large cost in finding, hiring, and training new employees. It can take six months to a year for productivity to cover these costs. A job offer from another employer is often all the leverage you need. Unless you're talking about mind-numbing shift work that anyone with and IQ over 65 can do. Even then such work is being increasingly automated. I've also never had a job where I've said "A little more bureaucracy just what this job needs" Unions have been shrinking in the private sector because they are increasingly irrelevant.
>Another zombie talking point. You guys really think that once you'd join a union, you'd really stand around and think "boy, I wish Bob would start slacking off so I can do my job plus his!" And there is nothing about unions that prevents people from being fired with cause.
So why does New York City Schools have "rubb
There are still alienation of affection cases in civil law wherein the other spouse can sue you for sleeping with their spouse. And anyways puts you at risk of being on the wrong end of a fault divorce.
Consider this benchmark. http://www.anandtech.com/bench... wherin the 6900k K beaks the same clocked and cored Piledriver by about 300%. So what is proven in this benchmark -Zen has a 50% IPC improvement for CineBench, and that it's SMT (symmetric multi-threading) solution scales quite well in the benchmark.
I doubt the price point of $189 The high-bin four-core eight-thread SKU will probably come out at that price to compete with haswell and skylake i5's. Double and then some say $489 for the eight-core to compete with broadwell-E. There will probably be a 6-core SKU made more the 8-core where one or two cores didn't pass quality control for around $299 to compete with some of the desktop i7's. (poorly in single threaded performance anyways, but should do well in parallel test especially DX12 or Vulkan games. AMD really needs cash flow now and won't want to get into a price war. Anyways I think the heavy hitter will be Zen APU's with Polaris and HBM2 likely the drop Q3 next year.
Considering that all of the top Social Media sites used in the UK (http://wearesocial.com/uk/blog/2015/02/uks-top-social-networks) are based in the USA, such sites are subject to the laws and legal precedents of the USA. Yet that's not the point. In order to have the full benefits of free speech (a vibrant marketplace of ideas), you ought allow anonymity precisely because it lowers the barriers of entry for any on those ideas into the marketplace. China is still under the control of the communist party, which explicitly suppresses competing ideas because the endanger the party narrative, not because they care about protecting the vanity of teen girls that can't handle people telling them their hair is ugly. The truth is the Internet (defined as an end to end, peer to peer network) is and has been a great leveler of ideas, which is driving the elite of all nations to look for any excuse to gain a greater control of it.
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n 514 U.S. 334, 357 (1995),
"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation—and their ideas from suppression—at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse."
Corporation don't pay taxes really anyways, because 1. They are fictional entities, and 2. Costs get passed down into first-order (consumer) goods for the most part anyways, Additionally the. U.S has an absurdly high top corporate rate. (40% vs 15-20 of most other similarly industrial nations), and is a large reason why U.S corporation keep as much money and revenue overseas as they can.
Public sector compensation is already quite generous, http://www.cagw.org/media/wast....
Most of what you mention is just sort of normal compensation and can be negotiated individually as appropriate (Or just look at average private-sector compensation as a baseline) . This due process thing is precisely what a lot of the best and brightest in the public sector object to, as it makes it difficult of impossible to remove low-performers and inappropriate behaviors. Why should someone be forced to support a group that advocates for policies they think are harmful or unnecessary in order to keep their job? What you call freeloading, is just a pejorative term applied to a positive externality. Unions pushed for the eight hour workday and made it the norm, but does every worker with a 8-hour day ow the Wobblies a union due? No, they did it to benefit themselves, and they did see the benefit, the setting of that social norm was just gravy.
Like being able to say you boss on on Dec 23. "I know you knew this project needed done by the end of the year two month ago, but didn't tell me you wanted me to do it until right now. However holiday with my family just isn't that important, so I'd love spending the next week furiously working on it 16 hours a day without help from any of my coworkers take the blame when the project fails horribly when moved to a production server "
Better than unions, are business structures that lack such a stark opposition in the first place... worker owned and cooperatives, Or in the S-corp form, limiting the sale of voting stock to not more than 10% per month, and no sales of such stocks held less than 1 year. Where imbalances exist Unions are the tool for the worker. On the other hand because Unions are meant to counter short-term corporate greed, we should be fairly skeptical of public sector unions either by prohibiting any political activity thereby, or allowing public employees that disagree with the overall activity and direction of the union to opt out of all fees.
Seriously, someone should start a service where you can pay $1.00 to robocall every politician that purportedly represents you, and deliver a custom message of your choosing. $2.00 for premium voices, like Indian support center guy, or the annoying chick from you navigation app (you know the one).
No, blacklists are a poor idea security wise, as it's the threat you don't know that you need to worry about. A default deny policy for ads and scripts from domains you don't explicitly trust is the better security policy.
Control = responsibility. The ultimate decision weather to serve an advert or not, lies with the domain controller., and thus the ultimate responsibility. Make the primary site liable to malware served through it. In effect this will force ad networks to offer indemnification policies on their ads, and the pointy hair types will finally see a reason to properly screen and sandbox advertisements.
Copyright law doesn't clearly provide a mechanism to release works to the public domain. If it actually doesn't provide that mechanism, Ms. High-smith still holds copyright, and what sher gave away was in effect a royal-free license to every member of the public that chose to accept it. If copyright does give you the right to commit works to the public domain, a third-parties claim of copyright on the same work, is a violation of the original parties copyright by which they committed the work to the public domain. A third party claiming copyright explicit interferes with the original artists desire for the work to be freely available.
Even the link you gave noted to controversy around grants to the public domain. "The public" is not a legal entity, has no legal identity, not property, no standing in any court, nor capacity to enter into any contracts or agreements. Gifting anything to "the public" is an absurdity and should not be interpreted as such, but rather a grant of license to all members of the public while keeping the original copyright nominally intact. until it would naturally expire . Such interpretation would sever most rights under copyright, but by keeping nominal claims the owner may have standing in some cases in order to make the "public domain grant" have more teeth legally speaking.
Also under section 203, a grant to public domain may in fact be revocable in some circumstances. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
TLDR; public domain is messy, and an artist is much better served with explicit public licenses, rather than a nebulous and legally dubious concept such as a grant into the public domain.
How lazy are you that you can't answer the question for yourself? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Actually DMCA notices to be valid mush be signed "under penalty of perjury", and require a statment the sender is the copyright holder, or is authorized by the copyright holder of the work to send the notice. How the hell can anyone send out a valid DMCA notice, large company or not, without being have a prima fascia full copyright information about the work in question
Fasle, keyword: Moral rights. Secondly even if copyright give you the ability to effectively release the work into the public domain (which is actually doubtful) Getty by claiming copyright over the images, violated the very copyright which allowed Ms. Highsmith to commit the images to the public domain.
Doesn't matter, they should have known. Being in the copyright business, they have no excuse not to know the law, and now excuse not to check for error.
Artist keep moral rights, And for sell a "licence" where you have no authority to do so is fraud.
An algorithmic conversion doesn't create a new copyright, especially if the algorithm is available to the public as it makes it likely two people would make the same conversion. Moreover the whole line of argument is bullshit precisely because Getty themselves failed to distinguish between copied of the work they purportedly "licensed" and those distributed by the plaintiff.