We just had the 3D movie and tv fad disappear a few years ago
Huh? It disappeared? *goes to check local movie site*, nope still there, only a few crappy 2D sessions at odd hours of the day and everything else still 3D.
I guess you're talking about home 3D, which was frigging stupid and never worked well.
Well my immediate thought was not so much killer sharks as it was another movie. Remember this one, they find something under the ice in Antarctica, a bunch of scientists go there to check it out and start drilling. A day later it's magically finished despite them not doing the drilling. Then aliens and predators have a fight and all the scientists die.
I don't know man, have you seen the movie "Life"? It doesn't take much more than a single organism to murder a whole lot of scientists and take over a planet.
It's part of the reason why Apple worked with all the carriers to start those plans that are effectively 1-2 year leases where you upgrade your phone each year to the new model.
Huh? Wait what? I remember getting a Nokia 5110 on that plan over 20 years ago back when Apple started selling brightly pink coloured plastic shit and calling it computers. Are you saying it took Apple to introduce in the USA what has been common in the rest of the world for many years prior?
We cure meat because the curing process makes delicious animals even more delicious.
If you're using nitrates to cure meat for taste reasons, my god man are you doing it wrong. It's probably the single worst way to do it. The only benefit it brings is that the resulting meat looks red and just like the process of dying oranges orange so they look more like the oranges people believe oranges should look like; it's stupid.
No one's going to ban smoked salmon, so what's the endgame here besides whining about health?
Well if we're going to whine about health then people should only ever eat smoked salmon as it would have a net positive health impact on everyone given how good it is for you. Also the curing process is not to soak it in a nitrite solution, but rather to brine it. As part of smoking it generates nitrite but less than that of curing beef, and less than that of char grilling too.
So yes, no one will ban smoked salmon, and unlike your earlier example, smoking IS something that is worthy of doing for its deliciousness.
Oh I fully agree with everything. As I said in another thread, what is the legal definition and what is common sense aren't the same thing. If stuck I don't think you'll find any idiot stupid enough not to accept cash as it just makes everyone's life easier.
Your 'debt as a commoner thinks of it' line is spectacularly unuseful, by the way. It is an ad hominem attack.
No it's not, not in the slightest. It's a realisation that debt has two meanings. The common dictionary meaning (a neat oneliner saying you owe someone), and the legal one (the shortest definition I've seen here covers 2 paragraphs). It's not an ad hominem attack to point out that people here are applying the common meaning while discussing a scenario where the legal meaning applies.
Also general accountants won't help you much here as accountants primarily deal with people who have typically quite common problems. Also having done accounting as part of school and my university degree, that doesn't help me either they sure as hell don't cover that there. You need to talk to is either a forensic accountant (those who liquidate companies and thus have typically spent equal parts of their degree studying financial law) or better still straight up lawyers specialising in finance.
Short term debt is still debt, but you do not incur short term debt between the end of a service and your trip to the cash register. Debt has well defined payback terms pre-negotiated at the time debt is incurred. Someone else I was just talking with gave a good scenario: What if you intend to pay but your card doesn't work. Well you could offer to pay tomorrow, at that point you have stopped buying a product and service and have entered into a debtor / creditor relationship with an agreed upon closing out of your terms.
The same is true for things like construction jobs where the final invoice when the job is done and signed will often have a contractual obligation to close out the balance within 30 days. Or anything that you buy now pay later. Those things fall under the definition of debt.
Yes an interesting edge case, however because the service rendered was due to be paid on the spot it still does not mean there is a legal obligation to pay USD cash. Curiously however if you get stuck you could negotiate a contract for future payment (I'll come back tomorrow and pay in full), at that point the other party stops becoming someone selling you a product or service and starts becoming a legal creditor.
The same applies to companies which provide you invoices with later payment terms such as those that say (Net payment due within 30 days). One could argue they must accept cash at the end of these 30 days. Or companies which offer buy now pay later terms.
But eating at a restaurant does not mean the restaurant at that time needs to accept your cash.
Is there an alternative to curing the meat with nitrites?
Yeah, not curing them. I mean there's no reason to anymore. It was done in the past for food safety reasons that are not really relevant with today's processing methods. Just like they used to bury meat in salt before refrigeration was invented.
and everyone already knows meat causes cancer.
But does it? Or do the things we do to it make it cause cancer.
No one cares. Pigs are fucking delicious. Cows are fucking delicious. We've already decided it's worth it.
We've decided given the option of eating or not eating it's worth it. We have not had a discussion on the topic of eating meat which causes cancer vs that which does not. I think you'll find less people taking your side of the debate when it's actually framed correctly.
At some point you have to accept that lots of naturally-occurring substances can kill you. And stop going on witch hunts against things just because they have a scary name that you don't recognize even though you've been eating, breathing, or rolling around in it all your life.
We should go back to putting radium in chocolate. https://www.businessinsider.co... to give you an inner glow. After all it's naturally-occurring right?
The point is not a witch hunt. It's a continuously evolving understanding. It's an industry adapting. it's the present adapting to new information. Nitrites are NOT needed to process meat, celery extract or otherwise. Just because some people eat celery doesn't mean you shouldn't also ban this entirely preventable and nonsensical ingredient being put into meat.
Go to a sitdown restaurant and have a meal before the bill is presented? Debt.
No, not debt. Look up the *legal* definition of debt from a financial law reference. Not the dictionary definition. You have no incurred debt.
Debt has a dictionary definition and a legal definition. Just because you incurred debt in a dictionary sense, doesn't mean what you have fits the legal definition of debt. The latter is key to understanding what is written on the bank notes. Which does not apply to your hairdresser (but does apply to the bank he picks up his morning float from).
Lastly, what happens if there is a problem with the plastic? Like shut off for suspected fraud and the customer didn't know?
We're talking about legal definitions not common sense. I agree common sense says cash should always be a fallback option. It makes perfect sense to.
I don't disagree that the rolling release is faster however it is not the latest and may be slightly missing the point. This is the same point why I'm happy to delay feature releases to Windows 10 as long as possible and run Ubuntu 18.04 LTS on my system. The complete underlying system should remain as rock solid and stable as possible, the opportunity to install the latest and greatest piece of *individual* software however should not be impeded.
That is the problem snaps solve. You risk stability by adding non-sanctioned repositories to your distribution. You risk stability by going with a distribution that rolls out everything as quickly as possible (look at the fuckup that was Arch's systemd migration, compared to the non-event that was Ubuntu 16.04 LTS).
I'm not saying everything should be a snap, I'm saying they are very useful and solve an existing linux problem.
I am against the law. I'm not against the intent. However the law as written was nothing like the intent thanks to corporate and political interests completely gutting Obama's proposal and turning it into the absurdity that it currently is. Let's face it, properly solving this process won't ever make it through the house and senate even if lobbyists would be taken out of the equation. The country is run by a bunch of old rich people who see their own health as being fine and therefore don't understand the problem.
When I'm using mine it usually doesn't show a "static image" - your words
Oh? You run every app in fullscreen with no close buttons, no task bar, no title bar? Are you using a computer or an iPad? In any case you're not representative of the 99.99% of computer users out there who would very quickly burn the time of day and the windows logo into their screens.
Several people died due to a tsunami as well. Both of these are independent of a nuclear incident. Lumping them together serves only to further political causes. Separating them however allows people to be truly held accountable and correct actions and mitigations to be devised in the future.
No there is no one problem. There are multiple. Insurance is one, regulation is the other. Having experienced first hand the burden of regulation on a nuclear project... lets just say we did the same project that took us 4 years in the nuclear industry in 5 months in the chemical industry. Let's also just say that a nuclear contract was the only one where working for a contract company we were showered in champagne at lavish and extravagant parties on boats. For companies that get paid by the hour a nuclear reactor secures your future for years to come and since the regulations are fixed with little bearing on the size and type of reactor you can copy, paste, submit to the regulator and then send a frigging huge bill to the customer for your "effort".
For all debts, public and private. It says so right on the bills.
Wowowow no. Please don't get hung up on the commoner's definition of debt = you owe someone money. That's not how debt is legally defined. It's also not the intent of the statement about legal tender.
Debt as far as legal tender is concerned can only be incurred in the form of a fixed financial contract. You are not in debt between the time you finish your dinner and when you pay, or when you fill up your car (especially in the latter case as stupidly outlined in the conversation because their goods haven't even left the premises yet. If you walk out you will also be charged under different legal frameworks (stealing vs breach of contract).
Legal tender for all debts public and private means exclusively that the USA central bank will accept USD bills to close out any outstanding debt, and that private banks need to handle debt likewise. For instance when you keep your money in a bank, read through your contract. It's a signed contract signifying the "debt" they owe you. Nothing more
And since this will come up 100 more times in this thread I'm now going on a copy-paste-athon.
It would make an interesting court case
It really wouldn't. It would be a frivolous case and I would hope your lawyer would advise you against it since he hopefully knows what debt actually is.
Also children. It's perfectly reasonable for a child to go to a store or a hairdresser on their own.
Why children? In my country there's specialised bank accounts set up for children while they are in primary school. I've had a debit card since I was about 7.
Already got a hairdo? Already had your salad dressed? Already drank two beers? You’re in their debt
Only as a commoner would see it. Unless you signed about 10 pages of legalese before you were served you did not incur debt in any of those scenarios as per the legal definition of debt. And when you walk out it will be the police that come get you, not the company's contract lawyers.
Bingo. If you deliver services prior to obtaining payment, you must accept cash.
No you do not. Debt has a legal definition that is far more complicated than the commoners understanding of "I owe you money". The process of incurring debt is a long and convoluted (assuming you read your paperwork).
The legal tender for all debts public and private means that the USA central bank and all private banks must accept USD for lending and holding purposes as defined in their contracts. A bank can not turn down cash payment into your account or to close out your loans. They can however refuse cash to pay fees though I've not seen a bank not simply take this out of your account anyway.
For some services you incur debt but that's entirely dependent on a lengthy legal contract you need to sign beforehand.
In this day of mobile apps to instantly view your balance why is this still a thing? The $20 left scenario I also don't understand. For me that's only a trigger of do I need to go to the ATM in order to afford this icecream or not.
Slashdot Mirror
The way I see it porn is the only thing keeping the VR scene alive. It's having the opposite effect of killing it.
We just had the 3D movie and tv fad disappear a few years ago
Huh? It disappeared? *goes to check local movie site*, nope still there, only a few crappy 2D sessions at odd hours of the day and everything else still 3D.
I guess you're talking about home 3D, which was frigging stupid and never worked well.
Well my immediate thought was not so much killer sharks as it was another movie. Remember this one, they find something under the ice in Antarctica, a bunch of scientists go there to check it out and start drilling. A day later it's magically finished despite them not doing the drilling. Then aliens and predators have a fight and all the scientists die.
I don't know man, have you seen the movie "Life"? It doesn't take much more than a single organism to murder a whole lot of scientists and take over a planet.
You conveniently forgot the price. For the incremental upgrade you don't expect that other distinctly nastier change they added.
So much negativity actually reflects consumer sentiment on this on the whole and is the entire point of TFA.
It's part of the reason why Apple worked with all the carriers to start those plans that are effectively 1-2 year leases where you upgrade your phone each year to the new model.
Huh? Wait what? I remember getting a Nokia 5110 on that plan over 20 years ago back when Apple started selling brightly pink coloured plastic shit and calling it computers. Are you saying it took Apple to introduce in the USA what has been common in the rest of the world for many years prior?
We cure meat because the curing process makes delicious animals even more delicious.
If you're using nitrates to cure meat for taste reasons, my god man are you doing it wrong. It's probably the single worst way to do it. The only benefit it brings is that the resulting meat looks red and just like the process of dying oranges orange so they look more like the oranges people believe oranges should look like; it's stupid.
No one's going to ban smoked salmon, so what's the endgame here besides whining about health?
Well if we're going to whine about health then people should only ever eat smoked salmon as it would have a net positive health impact on everyone given how good it is for you. Also the curing process is not to soak it in a nitrite solution, but rather to brine it. As part of smoking it generates nitrite but less than that of curing beef, and less than that of char grilling too.
So yes, no one will ban smoked salmon, and unlike your earlier example, smoking IS something that is worthy of doing for its deliciousness.
Oh I fully agree with everything. As I said in another thread, what is the legal definition and what is common sense aren't the same thing. If stuck I don't think you'll find any idiot stupid enough not to accept cash as it just makes everyone's life easier.
Your 'debt as a commoner thinks of it' line is spectacularly unuseful, by the way. It is an ad hominem attack.
No it's not, not in the slightest. It's a realisation that debt has two meanings. The common dictionary meaning (a neat oneliner saying you owe someone), and the legal one (the shortest definition I've seen here covers 2 paragraphs). It's not an ad hominem attack to point out that people here are applying the common meaning while discussing a scenario where the legal meaning applies.
Also general accountants won't help you much here as accountants primarily deal with people who have typically quite common problems. Also having done accounting as part of school and my university degree, that doesn't help me either they sure as hell don't cover that there.
You need to talk to is either a forensic accountant (those who liquidate companies and thus have typically spent equal parts of their degree studying financial law) or better still straight up lawyers specialising in finance.
Actually it is different. With Huawei we all instinctively know this to be the case because... China. With Cisco we've already seen proof.
Then we need to make it profitable.
That's hard to do without using the s word that republicans seem to hate so much, ... at least when it doesn't suit their vested interests.
*subsidies
Short term debt is still debt, but you do not incur short term debt between the end of a service and your trip to the cash register. Debt has well defined payback terms pre-negotiated at the time debt is incurred. Someone else I was just talking with gave a good scenario: What if you intend to pay but your card doesn't work. Well you could offer to pay tomorrow, at that point you have stopped buying a product and service and have entered into a debtor / creditor relationship with an agreed upon closing out of your terms.
The same is true for things like construction jobs where the final invoice when the job is done and signed will often have a contractual obligation to close out the balance within 30 days. Or anything that you buy now pay later. Those things fall under the definition of debt.
Getting a haircut, or drinking a beer does not.
Yes an interesting edge case, however because the service rendered was due to be paid on the spot it still does not mean there is a legal obligation to pay USD cash. Curiously however if you get stuck you could negotiate a contract for future payment (I'll come back tomorrow and pay in full), at that point the other party stops becoming someone selling you a product or service and starts becoming a legal creditor.
The same applies to companies which provide you invoices with later payment terms such as those that say (Net payment due within 30 days). One could argue they must accept cash at the end of these 30 days. Or companies which offer buy now pay later terms.
But eating at a restaurant does not mean the restaurant at that time needs to accept your cash.
Is there an alternative to curing the meat with nitrites?
Yeah, not curing them. I mean there's no reason to anymore. It was done in the past for food safety reasons that are not really relevant with today's processing methods. Just like they used to bury meat in salt before refrigeration was invented.
and everyone already knows meat causes cancer.
But does it? Or do the things we do to it make it cause cancer.
No one cares. Pigs are fucking delicious. Cows are fucking delicious. We've already decided it's worth it.
We've decided given the option of eating or not eating it's worth it. We have not had a discussion on the topic of eating meat which causes cancer vs that which does not. I think you'll find less people taking your side of the debate when it's actually framed correctly.
At some point you have to accept that lots of naturally-occurring substances can kill you. And stop going on witch hunts against things just because they have a scary name that you don't recognize even though you've been eating, breathing, or rolling around in it all your life.
We should go back to putting radium in chocolate. https://www.businessinsider.co... to give you an inner glow. After all it's naturally-occurring right?
The point is not a witch hunt. It's a continuously evolving understanding. It's an industry adapting. it's the present adapting to new information. Nitrites are NOT needed to process meat, celery extract or otherwise. Just because some people eat celery doesn't mean you shouldn't also ban this entirely preventable and nonsensical ingredient being put into meat.
Go to a sitdown restaurant and have a meal before the bill is presented? Debt.
No, not debt. Look up the *legal* definition of debt from a financial law reference. Not the dictionary definition. You have no incurred debt.
Debt has a dictionary definition and a legal definition. Just because you incurred debt in a dictionary sense, doesn't mean what you have fits the legal definition of debt. The latter is key to understanding what is written on the bank notes. Which does not apply to your hairdresser (but does apply to the bank he picks up his morning float from).
Lastly, what happens if there is a problem with the plastic? Like shut off for suspected fraud and the customer didn't know?
We're talking about legal definitions not common sense. I agree common sense says cash should always be a fallback option. It makes perfect sense to.
https://www.archlinux.org/pack... 3.0.4-7 on the rolling distro.
https://snapcraft.io/vlc 3.0.5-1 on the snap.
I don't disagree that the rolling release is faster however it is not the latest and may be slightly missing the point. This is the same point why I'm happy to delay feature releases to Windows 10 as long as possible and run Ubuntu 18.04 LTS on my system. The complete underlying system should remain as rock solid and stable as possible, the opportunity to install the latest and greatest piece of *individual* software however should not be impeded.
That is the problem snaps solve. You risk stability by adding non-sanctioned repositories to your distribution. You risk stability by going with a distribution that rolls out everything as quickly as possible (look at the fuckup that was Arch's systemd migration, compared to the non-event that was Ubuntu 16.04 LTS).
I'm not saying everything should be a snap, I'm saying they are very useful and solve an existing linux problem.
I am against the law. I'm not against the intent. However the law as written was nothing like the intent thanks to corporate and political interests completely gutting Obama's proposal and turning it into the absurdity that it currently is. Let's face it, properly solving this process won't ever make it through the house and senate even if lobbyists would be taken out of the equation. The country is run by a bunch of old rich people who see their own health as being fine and therefore don't understand the problem.
When I'm using mine it usually doesn't show a "static image" - your words
Oh? You run every app in fullscreen with no close buttons, no task bar, no title bar? Are you using a computer or an iPad? In any case you're not representative of the 99.99% of computer users out there who would very quickly burn the time of day and the windows logo into their screens.
Several people died due to a tsunami as well. Both of these are independent of a nuclear incident. Lumping them together serves only to further political causes. Separating them however allows people to be truly held accountable and correct actions and mitigations to be devised in the future.
No, the problem is insurance.
No there is no one problem. There are multiple. Insurance is one, regulation is the other. Having experienced first hand the burden of regulation on a nuclear project ... lets just say we did the same project that took us 4 years in the nuclear industry in 5 months in the chemical industry. Let's also just say that a nuclear contract was the only one where working for a contract company we were showered in champagne at lavish and extravagant parties on boats. For companies that get paid by the hour a nuclear reactor secures your future for years to come and since the regulations are fixed with little bearing on the size and type of reactor you can copy, paste, submit to the regulator and then send a frigging huge bill to the customer for your "effort".
For all debts, public and private. It says so right on the bills.
Wowowow no. Please don't get hung up on the commoner's definition of debt = you owe someone money. That's not how debt is legally defined. It's also not the intent of the statement about legal tender.
Debt as far as legal tender is concerned can only be incurred in the form of a fixed financial contract. You are not in debt between the time you finish your dinner and when you pay, or when you fill up your car (especially in the latter case as stupidly outlined in the conversation because their goods haven't even left the premises yet. If you walk out you will also be charged under different legal frameworks (stealing vs breach of contract).
Legal tender for all debts public and private means exclusively that the USA central bank will accept USD bills to close out any outstanding debt, and that private banks need to handle debt likewise. For instance when you keep your money in a bank, read through your contract. It's a signed contract signifying the "debt" they owe you. Nothing more
And since this will come up 100 more times in this thread I'm now going on a copy-paste-athon.
It would make an interesting court case
It really wouldn't. It would be a frivolous case and I would hope your lawyer would advise you against it since he hopefully knows what debt actually is.
Also children. It's perfectly reasonable for a child to go to a store or a hairdresser on their own.
Why children? In my country there's specialised bank accounts set up for children while they are in primary school. I've had a debit card since I was about 7.
Already got a hairdo? Already had your salad dressed? Already drank two beers? You’re in their debt
Only as a commoner would see it. Unless you signed about 10 pages of legalese before you were served you did not incur debt in any of those scenarios as per the legal definition of debt. And when you walk out it will be the police that come get you, not the company's contract lawyers.
Bingo. If you deliver services prior to obtaining payment, you must accept cash.
No you do not. Debt has a legal definition that is far more complicated than the commoners understanding of "I owe you money". The process of incurring debt is a long and convoluted (assuming you read your paperwork).
The legal tender for all debts public and private means that the USA central bank and all private banks must accept USD for lending and holding purposes as defined in their contracts. A bank can not turn down cash payment into your account or to close out your loans. They can however refuse cash to pay fees though I've not seen a bank not simply take this out of your account anyway.
For some services you incur debt but that's entirely dependent on a lengthy legal contract you need to sign beforehand.
In this day of mobile apps to instantly view your balance why is this still a thing? The $20 left scenario I also don't understand. For me that's only a trigger of do I need to go to the ATM in order to afford this icecream or not.