OK, then, so whatever the Supreme Court says is what the Constitution is, right? So, obviously it would make no sense to disagree with any Supreme Court decision, because you'd be arguing for something unconstitutional. Talk about realpolitik.
There's no argumentation, no reason, no thought. Just "The Supremes said so, ergo, it is."
And the next time the Roberts court rules that the police can do whatever it is they'd like to do, that's fine, too, right? Because the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. No need for the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th amendments.
Seeing as we've already done the flyback to the Moon, the Moon station, manned flight to Mars, and the Mars station, we were just sitting around trying to find another use for our rockets.
When you say "steal their music", are you referring to pirates?
If so, that's not a sanctioned policy or anything.
Regarding a "fair price", what's that supposed to be? Radio doesn't pay anything to the singer (they pay to the songwriter, though). Internet radio pays a good deal more than radio. Do you want them to pay even more?
Actually, what I was referring to was this: You can't expect people to buy your music when they don't even want to listen to it. You can't force people to like your tastes. And if people don't buy your stuff, don't expect to be bailed out. Either sing what people like ("pop" music), or sing what you want, for the sake of music, and not for money.
But all this (having to get your phones from a carrier instead of buying a phone outright and then buying service) isn't just their fault. It's also the fault of users, who like the ability to get a "free" phone, which is really being payed for by their monthly payments.
But, beyond that, it's the fault of the government (the Fed, specifically), for lending out free money, basically. 0 or (in a sense, even negative) interest rates. Think about what percent you get for your savings account. The price signals being given out are simply to consume, consume, consume.
The same loose money policy which was responsible for the housing bubble is also responsible for the smartphone bubble (though it's possible that's about to burst).
OK, so the National Arts Foundation already exists and gives money to produce art that no one wants to see. What else is required?
By the way, I disagree that we need professional artists to create beauty. Beauty already exists in nature, and we merely copy it. People have been making art since the caveman era (cave murals in France). Art is a natural expression of humans. Humans will still create art even if there were nobody paying for it. In fact, that's the best kind. Getting a stipend and then sitting around all day trying to make the art come out of your head like Athene out of Zeus is lame. Ideally, art is something that gushes from within and can't be repressed. You have to create it no matter if someone pays you for it, which is the real loss of soul.
Love exists in every family, and the government didn't originate it. Paying for love seems strange. How is the federal government going to create compassion in citizens? Mandatory reeducation programs?
How could a GPS chip itself know what altitude it's at? It would have to get input from an altimeter, which you could simply replace with something that gives output of "10 ft above sea level".
While I'm no fan of Justin Beiber, it's really hard to understand why a music form should survive if people don't want to listen to it.
Music is somewhat as old as humanity. It begins with thumping on a makeshift drum (animal skin stretched across bones) and proceeds from there. If it's entertaining, people like listening to it. Sometimes, they'll even pay money to hear it again.
That said, I don't think jazz was ever about being a Madonna-like celebrity. It was more about expressing and improvising feelings. That will continue to happen as long as that subculture exists in New Orleans.
And who is it that will do the paying? Shall the government fix the the prices of cello performances, apples, Apples, tape measures, boats, and more? And who's to say that a fair price would be bigger (more money to the producer) or smaller (more value for the teeming masses)?
If you're offering to sell oranges for $10 per pound, and nobody is buying, whom shall you complain to? The Bureau of Nobody's Buying My Stuff Department?
The cold, hard truth is you just have to accept what the market (== people) are willing to pay to listen to a cello.
Any old cheap Nokia candyphone features an FM tuner, so it's surprising that that feature is left out of "smart" phones. I guess the reason is so that carriers can charge per-song, or charge for Internet access, whereas radio is basically free.
While I appreciate that certain musicians might add variety to the cultural scene, if nobody wants to listen to them, what are we supposed to do for them? Put them on musical welfare?
It would be useful if you tried to non-violently persuade people to listen to your preferred brand of music, so that it could become popular, and your favorite musicians would have an incentive to continue. (Basically the same thing that Linux distro fans do. Speaking of which, I haven't heard people asking for handouts for distro maintainers.)
I'm really trying to figure out what could be so wonderful about the Photoshop interface that PS users absolutely refuse to learn Gimp. I honestly don't know because I haven't pirated Photoshop.
Aside from color separations, what specifically is the problem with Gimp (other than the lame name)?
For a while, it seemed like Intel would dominate the mboard market.
After all, everything was being integrated onto boards (sound, network, Intel good-enough graphics, etc.). Add to that the processor itself, and you've got great vertical integration.
It's hard to believe Intel would give a better deal to an outsider (Gigabyte, MSI, etc.) than to its internal mboard division, no matter what accounting system is used.
I didn't miss it. I know about jury nullification.
However, prosecutors work along with judges to intimidate juries into not exercising this right.
That's the point of the prosecutor's speech above. Judges also say the same thing ("you're only to decide on whether the defendant committed the act, not if the act actually should be illegal"). Along with the vague threat of contempt of court, most juries comply.
The jury doesn't get to decide the sentence, which is really key to the whole thing.
Prosecutor: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you are only to decide on whether the law was broken, not if you don't like the law, not what you think the sentence should be. The only question is, did or did not the defendant steal a paper clip."
You don't need to file paperwork with the State Dept. to hire foreign nationals. Maybe if you're trying to bring them over to the US, but not if you're contracting with someone to do work. (It would be the ICE, not State.)
Contracting for services outside the US is considered import of a sort, but there's no specific permission required to do so. You just send the money. The only thing to worry about is the IRS (so you can deduct your expenses).
It's simply not the case that only companies can deduct their expenses. Sole proprietorships can do and deduct their expenses. You don't have to be incorporated to do so. A single person is the same as a sole proprietorship, whether you have employees or not.
Even if you're just a regular joe employee, you can deduct certain expenses which are related to your ability to earn money.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, then, so whatever the Supreme Court says is what the Constitution is, right? So, obviously it would make no sense to disagree with any Supreme Court decision, because you'd be arguing for something unconstitutional. Talk about realpolitik.
There's no argumentation, no reason, no thought. Just "The Supremes said so, ergo, it is."
And the next time the Roberts court rules that the police can do whatever it is they'd like to do, that's fine, too, right? Because the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. No need for the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th amendments.
If an internship were to satisfy *all* of those conditions, why oh why would a company even take on an intern in the first place?
A company would be well advised to simply pass on the whole idea of internship.
Seeing as we've already done the flyback to the Moon, the Moon station, manned flight to Mars, and the Mars station, we were just sitting around trying to find another use for our rockets.
NASA.
When you say "steal their music", are you referring to pirates?
If so, that's not a sanctioned policy or anything.
Regarding a "fair price", what's that supposed to be? Radio doesn't pay anything to the singer (they pay to the songwriter, though). Internet radio pays a good deal more than radio. Do you want them to pay even more?
Actually, what I was referring to was this: You can't expect people to buy your music when they don't even want to listen to it. You can't force people to like your tastes. And if people don't buy your stuff, don't expect to be bailed out. Either sing what people like ("pop" music), or sing what you want, for the sake of music, and not for money.
Sure, the carrier's are the spawn of the devil.
But all this (having to get your phones from a carrier instead of buying a phone outright and then buying service) isn't just their fault. It's also the fault of users, who like the ability to get a "free" phone, which is really being payed for by their monthly payments.
But, beyond that, it's the fault of the government (the Fed, specifically), for lending out free money, basically. 0 or (in a sense, even negative) interest rates. Think about what percent you get for your savings account. The price signals being given out are simply to consume, consume, consume.
The same loose money policy which was responsible for the housing bubble is also responsible for the smartphone bubble (though it's possible that's about to burst).
OK, so the National Arts Foundation already exists and gives money to produce art that no one wants to see. What else is required?
By the way, I disagree that we need professional artists to create beauty. Beauty already exists in nature, and we merely copy it. People have been making art since the caveman era (cave murals in France). Art is a natural expression of humans. Humans will still create art even if there were nobody paying for it. In fact, that's the best kind. Getting a stipend and then sitting around all day trying to make the art come out of your head like Athene out of Zeus is lame. Ideally, art is something that gushes from within and can't be repressed. You have to create it no matter if someone pays you for it, which is the real loss of soul.
Love exists in every family, and the government didn't originate it. Paying for love seems strange. How is the federal government going to create compassion in citizens? Mandatory reeducation programs?
Oopsies, I knew that and then forgot it.
How could a GPS chip itself know what altitude it's at? It would have to get input from an altimeter, which you could simply replace with something that gives output of "10 ft above sea level".
I'm sure your post was quite helpful to the GP.
While I'm no fan of Justin Beiber, it's really hard to understand why a music form should survive if people don't want to listen to it.
Music is somewhat as old as humanity. It begins with thumping on a makeshift drum (animal skin stretched across bones) and proceeds from there. If it's entertaining, people like listening to it. Sometimes, they'll even pay money to hear it again.
That said, I don't think jazz was ever about being a Madonna-like celebrity. It was more about expressing and improvising feelings. That will continue to happen as long as that subculture exists in New Orleans.
And who is it that will do the paying? Shall the government fix the the prices of cello performances, apples, Apples, tape measures, boats, and more? And who's to say that a fair price would be bigger (more money to the producer) or smaller (more value for the teeming masses)?
If you're offering to sell oranges for $10 per pound, and nobody is buying, whom shall you complain to? The Bureau of Nobody's Buying My Stuff Department?
The cold, hard truth is you just have to accept what the market (== people) are willing to pay to listen to a cello.
Any old cheap Nokia candyphone features an FM tuner, so it's surprising that that feature is left out of "smart" phones. I guess the reason is so that carriers can charge per-song, or charge for Internet access, whereas radio is basically free.
Who pays for radio, then? BBC or otherwise.
While I appreciate that certain musicians might add variety to the cultural scene, if nobody wants to listen to them, what are we supposed to do for them? Put them on musical welfare?
It would be useful if you tried to non-violently persuade people to listen to your preferred brand of music, so that it could become popular, and your favorite musicians would have an incentive to continue. (Basically the same thing that Linux distro fans do. Speaking of which, I haven't heard people asking for handouts for distro maintainers.)
I'm really trying to figure out what could be so wonderful about the Photoshop interface that PS users absolutely refuse to learn Gimp. I honestly don't know because I haven't pirated Photoshop.
Aside from color separations, what specifically is the problem with Gimp (other than the lame name)?
Are instructions required? If it's in the taskbar, why not just drag it off?
Indian Dept of Telecom: We're banning Huawei on hearing reports of security concerns by the US and Australia.
US House Intelligence Committee: We're banning Huawei on hearing reports of security concerns by India and Australia.
Australian Security Intelligence Organization: We're banning Huawei on hearing reports of security concerns by the US and India.
For a while, it seemed like Intel would dominate the mboard market.
After all, everything was being integrated onto boards (sound, network, Intel good-enough graphics, etc.). Add to that the processor itself, and you've got great vertical integration.
It's hard to believe Intel would give a better deal to an outsider (Gigabyte, MSI, etc.) than to its internal mboard division, no matter what accounting system is used.
So it's hard to figure this out.
I didn't miss it. I know about jury nullification.
However, prosecutors work along with judges to intimidate juries into not exercising this right.
That's the point of the prosecutor's speech above. Judges also say the same thing ("you're only to decide on whether the defendant committed the act, not if the act actually should be illegal"). Along with the vague threat of contempt of court, most juries comply.
The jury doesn't get to decide the sentence, which is really key to the whole thing.
Prosecutor:
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you are only to decide on whether the law was broken, not if you don't like the law, not what you think the sentence should be. The only question is, did or did not the defendant steal a paper clip."
Jury (with no option): "Yes"
Judge: "20 years with no chance of parole!"
Is that 700 euros per hour per year? (24 * 365 * 700)?
Or 700 euros per horse per year?
What, an intact human stomach full of Neanderthal chunks was found preserved in the Alps?
Will this work in the latest Chromium (for Win and for Lin)? Or is it just for the closed-source version of Chrome?
You don't need to file paperwork with the State Dept. to hire foreign nationals. Maybe if you're trying to bring them over to the US, but not if you're contracting with someone to do work. (It would be the ICE, not State.)
Contracting for services outside the US is considered import of a sort, but there's no specific permission required to do so. You just send the money. The only thing to worry about is the IRS (so you can deduct your expenses).
It's simply not the case that only companies can deduct their expenses. Sole proprietorships can do and deduct their expenses. You don't have to be incorporated to do so. A single person is the same as a sole proprietorship, whether you have employees or not.
Even if you're just a regular joe employee, you can deduct certain expenses which are related to your ability to earn money.