You can buy a cheaper new car for 2 months of income at the median income level. Even a tiny bit of savings is enough to buy a used car for cash.
LOL, WUT? The median personal income of people over 18 in the US is ~24k, 2 months of that is $4000 (excluding taxes of course). Where can you buy any new car for $4000? Many people in the US live paycheck to paycheck, those that do would find it very difficult to come up with several months of their salary to pay cash for a car. Yes, if they are responsible with their money they should be able to save enough to buy a used car without financing but unfortunately that doesn't reflect reality.
The issue is that the beneficiaries of the two-party system are the ones that would have to change it. They worked hard to rig the system, why would politicians change the system to something where they have to think about their views rather than just parroting the party line? Just like our system for financing campaigns, the voting system won't ever change because it would require politicians to work against their own self-interest to further the public good.
So you're saying I can claim copyright of every racist, terrible, piece of dross written on Twitter as long as I can prove I wrote it before them? I can clean up Twitter. It will be copyright notices as far as the eye can see. Only truly useful posts will survive.
Thanks to the DMCA, you don't even have to hold copyright, you just have to claim you do. Then for anyone who actually fights your takedown notice you can just say that your "automated system" messed up.
I wish I could be shocked at this behavior but this is standard operating procedure in America. The government has long been owned by the corporations, stuff like this just removes all doubt. The AG is conspiring openly to wipe out billions of dollars in Google's market value and for most of America this will merit a "ho-hum". The copyright mafia is out of control, writing their own laws and then conspiring with law enforcement to destroy their rivals. Something should be done but nothing will, as long as political campaigns are funded by corporate donations the political class will do their bidding. I guess Google just hasn't been giving the appropriate bribes.
Worse. He's claiming that AM has better sound quality than streaming.
Citation please. Seriously.
Good analog is better than shitty digital.
Shitty analog is, well, just shitty.
Lol wut? It's right there in the summary:
I don't need my music to be devalued by the worst quality in the history of broadcasting or any other form of distribution.
Worse than AM radio? Worse than Victrolas? Worse than music boxes (once a major method is distributing music)? I don't know what streaming service Mr. Young is listening to but there is no way it is worse than everything ever invented.
I think they crossed the line. Just wee bit. I mean, I'm not a rat lover or anything. But if kept clean, as in a pet, they are pretty damn cute. Smart too. Not as smart as my dog IMHO -- HEY! Let's wire up four dog brains next! Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. How about a monkey? Why not!
These animals have a consciousness. You can't deny that. No, it is not at the human level, but a life none-the-less. How fucking freaky cruel is it to take a consciousness and tie it together with three others in some form to just see what happens? How freaked out were these rats in their little disembodied brains.
Cruel.
I'm guessing you didn't read the article, the monkeys have already been done:
Nicolelis published a second paper, also in Scientific Reports, describing a Brainet that allows three monkeys connected at the brain to control a virtual arm on screen across three axes.
Perhaps the CC companies permit you to pass along swipe fees there, but in much of the world, they don't. They should probably be prohibited by law from prohibiting you from passing those fees on, but ha ha ha
Companies everywhere pass along the swipe fees, most just do it in the price of the product. This makes customers that pay by other means subsidize credit card customers. Since many cards return a portion of swipe fees to the user essentially cash customers are putting money directly into credit customers' pockets. It's a real prisoner's dilemma, if you don't use credit cards you are still paying higher prices because of them but you don't get the money back that card users receive. Ideally, nobody would use them and prices wouldn't have inflated to pay for the fees but since people do use them then you are forced to use them as well.
I can't help but wonder if this person (which I haven't seen) actually did resemble a gorilla. Wouldn't be the first time I've seen such a thing.
I suspect that if the person misidentified was white, this wouldn't be news however.
Yeah, god forbid you actually glance at the fucking linked article. I'm not even expecting you to read it, just look at the pictures. I know delaying your insightful reply by 10 seconds would be torture, otherwise how could you proclaim your ignorance?
I think Disney will clarify their statement -- "You can still use a selfie stick, as long as it's bought from a country overseas at a cheaper price."
You obviously don't know how Disney operates. They will allow the use of selfie sticks (now called "Mickey Sticks") that you buy from the park at a massively overinflated prices, maybe $200-$300, and of course you must use "Disney Dollars" to buy them because regular dollars aren't "fun".
Imagine a toy market consisting of only two people, who both do the same work and make the same money from that work. One of them has more capital than he's using, and the other doesn't have enough capital to use. The latter then has to borrow capital from the former, and pay the former for the privilege. Thus, though they both contribute exactly the same work, one of them accumulates more capital and the other loses it, only because the prior distribution of capital was different.
In your example, person 1 is providing both work and risking capital where person 2 is only providing work. Why shouldn't person 1 receive a greater reward than person 2 when he is taking a risk and doing just as much work? If person 2 wants to get the same outcome as person 1 he needs to work harder than person 1, not do the exact same work. Yes, capitalism is rigged for people who already have capital, that is why we have things such as progressive tax structures and estate taxes - to try to even that out. The beauty of the system is that anyone can own capital - in contrast to most other systems you can work yourself up the ladder and be an owner rather than just a worker.
an EULA is a binding contract, and there has never been one thrown out of court to date.
Never? What about Klocek v. Gateway? The court found in that case that since the sale occurred before the "agreement" that the terms of the agreement were not part of the original sale and struck down the EULA. You better go back to law school for the second semester, obviously the stuff learned in the first semester isn't everything.
his stance is simple, and consistent. "is it constitutional?"
The problem is that he thinks HE is the one who gets to decide what is constitutional, no matter that the constitution grants that power to the Supreme Court:
"Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so"[reference] -Rand Paul
I remember lots of Democrat outrage when it first came to be.
Are you talking about the Patriot Act that passed the Senate 98-1? Sure, the one dissenting Senator was a Democrat (Feingold) but that is hardly "lots of Democrat outrage". The Democrats weren't outraged then and they aren't outraged now, they want to snoop on you and control you JUST as much as "the party of small government" does. The US party duopoly is two sides of the same shitty coin.
Yes, because semi trucks pay gas taxes. Also, other taxes.
But more to the point, you and I benefit from semi trucks delivering the goods that we like to buy. You and I do NOT benefit from private passenger vehicles other than our own. Make sure to factor that into your cost-benefit analysis.
That assumes that all truck traffic is carrying consumer goods, however this isn't the case. If a gold-mining company is hauling a 190,000 pound excavator to a job site, how does that benefit me? Currently, automobiles are subsidizing such road use with the gas tax, this law seems like it will make that subsidy even greater. Large trucks do not pay taxes in proportion to the damage they do to the roads, since damage increases exponentially with weight.
These are occupation statistics, so recreational flyers won't apply. However, the other occupations you mentioned are relevant, particularly small charter planes. For example, in Alaska there are tons of places that are only accessible from the air and there is a large charter plane and bush plane industry which often has to fly in challenging conditions.
A Sheriff is often elected, other than that most police aren't elected. However, the people who give them their marching orders (District Attorney, Mayor) often are elected so that is where voter pressure needs to be applied. Not that it will do much good, both dominant political parties in the US are quite authoritarian so it is unlikely any serious action will be taken against the police departments.
Either my understanding of orbital mechanics is completely wrong or that is completely incorrect.
It's the former. Hint: the moon is beyond geosync distance but somehow it manages to stay in orbit. The "balanced" orbit you are thinking of may be the Lagrange Points, where the gravity of a body balances with the gravity of another body.
Actual scientific studies seem to indicate that poorer people are much more likely to be religious than well-off people. For examples, look at this Gallup page that says Religiosity Highest in World's Poorest Nations. Or check out the Wikipedia page on Wealth and Religion which says "The GDP of countries generally correlates negatively with their religiosity, i.e. the wealthier a population is the less religious it is". There are several studies cited on that page that seem to support that conclusion. You claim to have a source for your assertion that "lack of religion in the us is strongly correlated with poverty", can you please provide it?
Not to mention the fact that these cars probably drive more than an average car drives in a year. The only logical statistic is the accident rate per miles driven, not accident rate per some period of time.
I drive roadsters that can stop on a dime. If I stand on my brakes because I hallucinated a wall in the middle of the highway, I can guarantee that people behind me will rear-end me. Would you say there were following me too close and are at fault?
The law says that they are at fault if they hit you from behind. It is the responsibility of the trailing driver (or computer) to allow enough following distance to safely stop if the car in front of them stops. If their car takes longer to stop than yours, they need to allow a greater following distance - just like semi drivers are expected to now since their trucks take longer to stop than a car. This should be one of the places where a computer excels, not only will they always leave enough room to stop safely they will also have a quicker reaction time than a human and so can apply the brakes more quickly.
If you hold a stock for less then 2 years income is taxed at regular income rate, reflecting the speculative (gambling) nature of the play. If more then 2 years it's a capital gain.
Funny, I would've thought the Fark Nitpicking Patrol would have been full of early risers.
Why would the Fark Nitpicking Patrol be on Slashdot? Are there not enough typos on Fark to satisfy them? I know that can't be the case, there are thousands of man-hours of work just correcting misused apostophe's alone.
Slashdot Mirror
You can buy a cheaper new car for 2 months of income at the median income level. Even a tiny bit of savings is enough to buy a used car for cash.
LOL, WUT? The median personal income of people over 18 in the US is ~24k, 2 months of that is $4000 (excluding taxes of course). Where can you buy any new car for $4000? Many people in the US live paycheck to paycheck, those that do would find it very difficult to come up with several months of their salary to pay cash for a car. Yes, if they are responsible with their money they should be able to save enough to buy a used car without financing but unfortunately that doesn't reflect reality.
I know this is Slashdot, but the abstracter of the paper is pretty clear:
"Our test campaign can not confirm or refute the claims of the EMDrive"
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.251...
How did we get from that to the summary posted here? Why does the happen every single time an article about this appears on Slashdot?
Because that's what clickbait is all about!
The issue is that the beneficiaries of the two-party system are the ones that would have to change it. They worked hard to rig the system, why would politicians change the system to something where they have to think about their views rather than just parroting the party line? Just like our system for financing campaigns, the voting system won't ever change because it would require politicians to work against their own self-interest to further the public good.
So you're saying I can claim copyright of every racist, terrible, piece of dross written on Twitter as long as I can prove I wrote it before them? I can clean up Twitter. It will be copyright notices as far as the eye can see. Only truly useful posts will survive.
Thanks to the DMCA, you don't even have to hold copyright, you just have to claim you do. Then for anyone who actually fights your takedown notice you can just say that your "automated system" messed up.
I wish I could be shocked at this behavior but this is standard operating procedure in America. The government has long been owned by the corporations, stuff like this just removes all doubt. The AG is conspiring openly to wipe out billions of dollars in Google's market value and for most of America this will merit a "ho-hum". The copyright mafia is out of control, writing their own laws and then conspiring with law enforcement to destroy their rivals. Something should be done but nothing will, as long as political campaigns are funded by corporate donations the political class will do their bidding. I guess Google just hasn't been giving the appropriate bribes.
I suspect any one of us could be found guilty of multiple felonies if a team of lawyers were tasked with charging us with something
This book claims we each commit an average of 3 felonies per day.
Worse. He's claiming that AM has better sound quality than streaming.
Citation please. Seriously.
Good analog is better than shitty digital.
Shitty analog is, well, just shitty.
Lol wut? It's right there in the summary:
I don't need my music to be devalued by the worst quality in the history of broadcasting or any other form of distribution.
Worse than AM radio? Worse than Victrolas? Worse than music boxes (once a major method is distributing music)? I don't know what streaming service Mr. Young is listening to but there is no way it is worse than everything ever invented.
I think they crossed the line. Just wee bit. I mean, I'm not a rat lover or anything. But if kept clean, as in a pet, they are pretty damn cute. Smart too. Not as smart as my dog IMHO -- HEY! Let's wire up four dog brains next! Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. How about a monkey? Why not!
These animals have a consciousness. You can't deny that. No, it is not at the human level, but a life none-the-less. How fucking freaky cruel is it to take a consciousness and tie it together with three others in some form to just see what happens? How freaked out were these rats in their little disembodied brains.
Cruel.
I'm guessing you didn't read the article, the monkeys have already been done:
Nicolelis published a second paper, also in Scientific Reports, describing a Brainet that allows three monkeys connected at the brain to control a virtual arm on screen across three axes.
Perhaps the CC companies permit you to pass along swipe fees there, but in much of the world, they don't. They should probably be prohibited by law from prohibiting you from passing those fees on, but ha ha ha
Companies everywhere pass along the swipe fees, most just do it in the price of the product. This makes customers that pay by other means subsidize credit card customers. Since many cards return a portion of swipe fees to the user essentially cash customers are putting money directly into credit customers' pockets. It's a real prisoner's dilemma, if you don't use credit cards you are still paying higher prices because of them but you don't get the money back that card users receive. Ideally, nobody would use them and prices wouldn't have inflated to pay for the fees but since people do use them then you are forced to use them as well.
I can't help but wonder if this person (which I haven't seen) actually did resemble a gorilla. Wouldn't be the first time I've seen such a thing.
I suspect that if the person misidentified was white, this wouldn't be news however.
Yeah, god forbid you actually glance at the fucking linked article. I'm not even expecting you to read it, just look at the pictures. I know delaying your insightful reply by 10 seconds would be torture, otherwise how could you proclaim your ignorance?
I, for one, shall never buy a Monster Cable product. And I think I am not the only one.
Yeah, but for me it's their poor value:price ratio, not their abhorrent business practices.
I think Disney will clarify their statement -- "You can still use a selfie stick, as long as it's bought from a country overseas at a cheaper price."
You obviously don't know how Disney operates. They will allow the use of selfie sticks (now called "Mickey Sticks") that you buy from the park at a massively overinflated prices, maybe $200-$300, and of course you must use "Disney Dollars" to buy them because regular dollars aren't "fun".
Imagine a toy market consisting of only two people, who both do the same work and make the same money from that work. One of them has more capital than he's using, and the other doesn't have enough capital to use. The latter then has to borrow capital from the former, and pay the former for the privilege. Thus, though they both contribute exactly the same work, one of them accumulates more capital and the other loses it, only because the prior distribution of capital was different.
In your example, person 1 is providing both work and risking capital where person 2 is only providing work. Why shouldn't person 1 receive a greater reward than person 2 when he is taking a risk and doing just as much work? If person 2 wants to get the same outcome as person 1 he needs to work harder than person 1, not do the exact same work. Yes, capitalism is rigged for people who already have capital, that is why we have things such as progressive tax structures and estate taxes - to try to even that out. The beauty of the system is that anyone can own capital - in contrast to most other systems you can work yourself up the ladder and be an owner rather than just a worker.
an EULA is a binding contract, and there has never been one thrown out of court to date.
Never? What about Klocek v. Gateway? The court found in that case that since the sale occurred before the "agreement" that the terms of the agreement were not part of the original sale and struck down the EULA. You better go back to law school for the second semester, obviously the stuff learned in the first semester isn't everything.
his stance is simple, and consistent. "is it constitutional?"
The problem is that he thinks HE is the one who gets to decide what is constitutional, no matter that the constitution grants that power to the Supreme Court:
"Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so" [reference]
-Rand Paul
I remember lots of Democrat outrage when it first came to be.
Are you talking about the Patriot Act that passed the Senate 98-1? Sure, the one dissenting Senator was a Democrat (Feingold) but that is hardly "lots of Democrat outrage". The Democrats weren't outraged then and they aren't outraged now, they want to snoop on you and control you JUST as much as "the party of small government" does. The US party duopoly is two sides of the same shitty coin.
Yes, because semi trucks pay gas taxes. Also, other taxes.
But more to the point, you and I benefit from semi trucks delivering the goods that we like to buy. You and I do NOT benefit from private passenger vehicles other than our own. Make sure to factor that into your cost-benefit analysis.
That assumes that all truck traffic is carrying consumer goods, however this isn't the case. If a gold-mining company is hauling a 190,000 pound excavator to a job site, how does that benefit me? Currently, automobiles are subsidizing such road use with the gas tax, this law seems like it will make that subsidy even greater. Large trucks do not pay taxes in proportion to the damage they do to the roads, since damage increases exponentially with weight.
These are occupation statistics, so recreational flyers won't apply. However, the other occupations you mentioned are relevant, particularly small charter planes. For example, in Alaska there are tons of places that are only accessible from the air and there is a large charter plane and bush plane industry which often has to fly in challenging conditions.
A Sheriff is often elected, other than that most police aren't elected. However, the people who give them their marching orders (District Attorney, Mayor) often are elected so that is where voter pressure needs to be applied. Not that it will do much good, both dominant political parties in the US are quite authoritarian so it is unlikely any serious action will be taken against the police departments.
Either my understanding of orbital mechanics is completely wrong or that is completely incorrect.
It's the former. Hint: the moon is beyond geosync distance but somehow it manages to stay in orbit. The "balanced" orbit you are thinking of may be the Lagrange Points, where the gravity of a body balances with the gravity of another body.
Actual scientific studies seem to indicate that poorer people are much more likely to be religious than well-off people. For examples, look at this Gallup page that says Religiosity Highest in World's Poorest Nations. Or check out the Wikipedia page on Wealth and Religion which says "The GDP of countries generally correlates negatively with their religiosity, i.e. the wealthier a population is the less religious it is". There are several studies cited on that page that seem to support that conclusion. You claim to have a source for your assertion that "lack of religion in the us is strongly correlated with poverty", can you please provide it?
Not to mention the fact that these cars probably drive more than an average car drives in a year. The only logical statistic is the accident rate per miles driven, not accident rate per some period of time.
I drive roadsters that can stop on a dime. If I stand on my brakes because I hallucinated a wall in the middle of the highway, I can guarantee that people behind me will rear-end me. Would you say there were following me too close and are at fault?
The law says that they are at fault if they hit you from behind. It is the responsibility of the trailing driver (or computer) to allow enough following distance to safely stop if the car in front of them stops. If their car takes longer to stop than yours, they need to allow a greater following distance - just like semi drivers are expected to now since their trucks take longer to stop than a car. This should be one of the places where a computer excels, not only will they always leave enough room to stop safely they will also have a quicker reaction time than a human and so can apply the brakes more quickly.
If you hold a stock for less then 2 years income is taxed at regular income rate, reflecting the speculative (gambling) nature of the play. If more then 2 years it's a capital gain.
It's actually one year
They does?
Funny, I would've thought the Fark Nitpicking Patrol would have been full of early risers.
Why would the Fark Nitpicking Patrol be on Slashdot? Are there not enough typos on Fark to satisfy them? I know that can't be the case, there are thousands of man-hours of work just correcting misused apostophe's alone.