Umm, its relatively common to cite cases from other districts, and not uncommon to cite cases from other countries, or at least the legal logic in there. Neither are binding, but judges do consider them.
For the.1% of us that will ever be in that situation? There's cops out there who have never had to pull their weapon, forget about private citizens. You're more likely to be hurt by your own weapon than actually defend yourself with a gun.
I grew up in the midwest. Didn't know anyone who'd ever gone hunting. Besides which, the MAJORITY of the US lives in urban or suburban areas, so if someone is being focused in on their area its you.
Plus nobody ever uses a hand gun to go hunting. So still the majority of guns are not hunting weapons.
Because automobiles provide a useful purpose- bringing people to and from jobs, entertainment, etc. It has a positive effect on people's lives, and we decide its worth the cost. Guns provide no use aside from hunting, which a tiny minority of guns are actually used for.
Also, on a per capita basis its ridiculously the other way. The majority of people don't own guns, but do own cars. So a far larger percentage of gun owners cause deaths than car owners.
No, you don't. Look at the dollar or the pound. You see multi-decade stability (the last major blip with the dollar was disinflation in the 80s) , with a roughly constant rate of devaluation. That's what you want to see in a currency. Not a few months of relative stability with massive swings on either side. To even make the claim of stability because it had periods of it for parts of 1 year is a complete joke.
Why should it be on the people? If the company doesn't want to follow their laws, they shouldn't sell their stuff in that country. By choosing to operate in Germany, they have to follow German laws for products sold in that country. Don't like it, decide not to sell there.
You don't have to- you only have to make sure its legal in the countries you sell it in. Germans aren't suing because of Apple violating their law in America, they're suing them for violating it in Germany. If you aren't willing to abide by the laws, then don't sell in that country.
How does it help even that? If I was willing to lie to get the job, why wouldn't I give you a friend's phone number/email address rather than my actual boss?
But that's not the right law to charge him under. Charge him under fraud or stealing, no problem. This is the anti-hacking law- they're charging him with hacking. I don't think this qualifies. It also is the difference between being tried in the federal court system (hacking is a federal crime) vs the state (which owns the laws for theft and fraud).
Either way he should be prosecuted, the question is why and where.
Eh, its not easy to get people to pay for apps either- they aren't used to doing it. But yes, I make far more on paid apps with lower volume.
I think newspapers jumped up too much too quickly, and with too much reliance on the AP- why should I pay for news when every paper has the same damn articles and most are free? Really only the best papers can make money that way I suspect.
You're orders of magnitude too high. I made 4 cents on a click through yesterday through admob. It was the only click that day. I make nothing on an impression basis. There are a few networks that pay on an impression basis, but its pennies per 1000 impressions.
I make 1 or 2 cents per user. Most ad networks pay on a click-through basis, and nobody clicks on ads. The ones that pay per impression pay pennies per 1000 impressions. If you have any costs its not a sustainable way to run a business. If you make an amazingly popular app, you may be able to pay for 1 developer for a year at US rates. You'd need to shotgun out an app every few weeks to really stay alive.
The prices are on par or lower than the local supermarkets. And I don't really care whether they're local or not- I find little to no taste difference.
Do you really return food? I've never even heard of such a thing.
As for unions- if you weren't insisting on paying for ridiculously inflated local food, you wouldn't have price problems. I'm quite happy to pay more and give all the people working a living wage, something only unions provide them.
Its getting big in some parts of Seattle- Amazon delivers groceries daily to most zip codes, and will even promise to have it there by 7 am if you want it before work.
Have you considered that there's people out there who just don't like shopping? It's an extremely boring activity. And for the vast majority of people who aren't foodies, we don't care about organic, local, or any of that other bullshit- we just want tasty at the end. There's far better things to do with my life than spend more than the absolute minimal time grocery shopping- I'd rather study, read, play games, hang out with friends, work, volunteer, exercise, or really do damn near anything else than walk around looking for shit to buy at one place, much less multiple places. Or go to a restaurant and have them do it for me, with better quality, while I do one of those other activities while waiting for the food. And then there's the lines- if you go at any reasonable time you're waiting 5-20 minutes in line. And if you want to avoid that, you're reorganizing your life to do something you hate more efficiently. That's no way to live. In my ideal world it would take 0 minutes to grocery shop- anything above that is detracting from my life.
Oh, and then there's produce. I have no idea how to tell if most veggies are fresh or not. I don't want to learn. I just want to get in and get then fuck out.
Delivery is orders of magnitude better- I don't have to wander around looking for stuff, I can set up menus of items to buy at once for recipies, I can easily plan out what I'm eating, I don't need to carry stuff up flights of stairs, I don't need to wonder if I'm out of something or not (I can just check), and I can use a fraction of the time. Don't tell them, but I'd probably pay double for the convenience. Triple if they're willing to carry 2 or 3 kegs of diet pop up the stairs.
Or you work on something techy but not programming. I'd prefer to study electronics, physics, etc than program most of my offtime. I still like thinking in my time off, but I want to do it on a totally different topic.
Actually, the biggest gains in employment were because we work fewer hours. In the 1880s, people worked 7 days a week 12-16 hours a day in factories. Now people work 40 hour weeks, and we invented second and third shifts, which required us to hire far more people to fill those jobs. If we hadn't, unemployment would be 50% plus now, not including the effect of fewer people buying goods- just due to not needing as many workers. Social security in the 30s did the same thing- kicked out older workers, thus decreasing unemployment among the young.
We can cut unskilled labor hours again down to 30, or even 20. But there's diminishing returns to that as untrained workforces increase inefficiency. It also doesn't help at the skilled side where many intellectual jobs are easier done by one skilled person than 2-3 (who may not be as skilled).
At the same time a lot of the jobs that would be increased by extra free time (entertainment, services) are increasingly going to mass production due to technology. Fewer plays because people watch movies. Fewer live music shows as people listen to recordings. So the demand for those types of jobs go down too. And what will happen when every Applebees on the planet ditches 2/3 of their waitstaff with on table tablets for ordering (I've seen it rolled out at some locations already).
We may slide out of it again this time, but at some point in the next century or so we're going to have to realize that there just isn't enough work for everyone to do, and we'll need to reorganize society along that.
There's also programs that may be inefficient or cost money that society decides are worth paying for anyway. Not everything needs to be about making a profit. Those programs should still be watched to ensure that are as efficient as possible, but they shouldn't necessarily be killed. Social Security is an example of that- there's no financial gains for keeping old people alive and sheltered, but its something society decides is a good idea.
Texas doesn't. That's an urban legend. What Texas did have the right to do was to be split into 4 smaller states. They've never exercised that right. But they never had the right to leave alltogether. Here's the exact resolution that joined Texas to the union:
No, there was no right to secede. Nowhere in the Constitution is there mention of a way to leave the union. Also, the south started the shooting part of the war by attacking Fort Sumter, until then the north was trying to talk it through. So no, there was no northern aggression anywhere.
ABout 2 years ago, I got a new credit card. I started making online purchases. A year later, I had a purchase rejected. Turns out that I used the wrong CVV- I used the CVV from the old card it replaced. I'd been using that CVV the whole time. I'd been using the wrong CVV for over a year, and this was the first time it had stopped the transaction.
Once again- a prime example of the problem with agile. Believes that it solves every problem, and his first reaction, rather than asking for details an analyzing, is to say "you're doing it wrong".
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, its relatively common to cite cases from other districts, and not uncommon to cite cases from other countries, or at least the legal logic in there. Neither are binding, but judges do consider them.
For the .1% of us that will ever be in that situation? There's cops out there who have never had to pull their weapon, forget about private citizens. You're more likely to be hurt by your own weapon than actually defend yourself with a gun.
I grew up in the midwest. Didn't know anyone who'd ever gone hunting. Besides which, the MAJORITY of the US lives in urban or suburban areas, so if someone is being focused in on their area its you.
Plus nobody ever uses a hand gun to go hunting. So still the majority of guns are not hunting weapons.
Because automobiles provide a useful purpose- bringing people to and from jobs, entertainment, etc. It has a positive effect on people's lives, and we decide its worth the cost. Guns provide no use aside from hunting, which a tiny minority of guns are actually used for.
Also, on a per capita basis its ridiculously the other way. The majority of people don't own guns, but do own cars. So a far larger percentage of gun owners cause deaths than car owners.
No, you don't. Look at the dollar or the pound. You see multi-decade stability (the last major blip with the dollar was disinflation in the 80s) , with a roughly constant rate of devaluation. That's what you want to see in a currency. Not a few months of relative stability with massive swings on either side. To even make the claim of stability because it had periods of it for parts of 1 year is a complete joke.
Why should it be on the people? If the company doesn't want to follow their laws, they shouldn't sell their stuff in that country. By choosing to operate in Germany, they have to follow German laws for products sold in that country. Don't like it, decide not to sell there.
You don't have to- you only have to make sure its legal in the countries you sell it in. Germans aren't suing because of Apple violating their law in America, they're suing them for violating it in Germany. If you aren't willing to abide by the laws, then don't sell in that country.
How does it help even that? If I was willing to lie to get the job, why wouldn't I give you a friend's phone number/email address rather than my actual boss?
But that's not the right law to charge him under. Charge him under fraud or stealing, no problem. This is the anti-hacking law- they're charging him with hacking. I don't think this qualifies. It also is the difference between being tried in the federal court system (hacking is a federal crime) vs the state (which owns the laws for theft and fraud).
Either way he should be prosecuted, the question is why and where.
Eh, its not easy to get people to pay for apps either- they aren't used to doing it. But yes, I make far more on paid apps with lower volume.
I think newspapers jumped up too much too quickly, and with too much reliance on the AP- why should I pay for news when every paper has the same damn articles and most are free? Really only the best papers can make money that way I suspect.
You're orders of magnitude too high. I made 4 cents on a click through yesterday through admob. It was the only click that day. I make nothing on an impression basis. There are a few networks that pay on an impression basis, but its pennies per 1000 impressions.
I make 1 or 2 cents per user. Most ad networks pay on a click-through basis, and nobody clicks on ads. The ones that pay per impression pay pennies per 1000 impressions. If you have any costs its not a sustainable way to run a business. If you make an amazingly popular app, you may be able to pay for 1 developer for a year at US rates. You'd need to shotgun out an app every few weeks to really stay alive.
Those aren't MS apps. Let's at least insult them for the right reasons. Those are 3rd party apps sold on an MS OS.
The prices are on par or lower than the local supermarkets. And I don't really care whether they're local or not- I find little to no taste difference.
Do you really return food? I've never even heard of such a thing.
As for unions- if you weren't insisting on paying for ridiculously inflated local food, you wouldn't have price problems. I'm quite happy to pay more and give all the people working a living wage, something only unions provide them.
Its getting big in some parts of Seattle- Amazon delivers groceries daily to most zip codes, and will even promise to have it there by 7 am if you want it before work.
Have you considered that there's people out there who just don't like shopping? It's an extremely boring activity. And for the vast majority of people who aren't foodies, we don't care about organic, local, or any of that other bullshit- we just want tasty at the end. There's far better things to do with my life than spend more than the absolute minimal time grocery shopping- I'd rather study, read, play games, hang out with friends, work, volunteer, exercise, or really do damn near anything else than walk around looking for shit to buy at one place, much less multiple places. Or go to a restaurant and have them do it for me, with better quality, while I do one of those other activities while waiting for the food. And then there's the lines- if you go at any reasonable time you're waiting 5-20 minutes in line. And if you want to avoid that, you're reorganizing your life to do something you hate more efficiently. That's no way to live. In my ideal world it would take 0 minutes to grocery shop- anything above that is detracting from my life.
Oh, and then there's produce. I have no idea how to tell if most veggies are fresh or not. I don't want to learn. I just want to get in and get then fuck out.
Delivery is orders of magnitude better- I don't have to wander around looking for stuff, I can set up menus of items to buy at once for recipies, I can easily plan out what I'm eating, I don't need to carry stuff up flights of stairs, I don't need to wonder if I'm out of something or not (I can just check), and I can use a fraction of the time. Don't tell them, but I'd probably pay double for the convenience. Triple if they're willing to carry 2 or 3 kegs of diet pop up the stairs.
Or you work on something techy but not programming. I'd prefer to study electronics, physics, etc than program most of my offtime. I still like thinking in my time off, but I want to do it on a totally different topic.
Actually, the biggest gains in employment were because we work fewer hours. In the 1880s, people worked 7 days a week 12-16 hours a day in factories. Now people work 40 hour weeks, and we invented second and third shifts, which required us to hire far more people to fill those jobs. If we hadn't, unemployment would be 50% plus now, not including the effect of fewer people buying goods- just due to not needing as many workers. Social security in the 30s did the same thing- kicked out older workers, thus decreasing unemployment among the young.
We can cut unskilled labor hours again down to 30, or even 20. But there's diminishing returns to that as untrained workforces increase inefficiency. It also doesn't help at the skilled side where many intellectual jobs are easier done by one skilled person than 2-3 (who may not be as skilled).
At the same time a lot of the jobs that would be increased by extra free time (entertainment, services) are increasingly going to mass production due to technology. Fewer plays because people watch movies. Fewer live music shows as people listen to recordings. So the demand for those types of jobs go down too. And what will happen when every Applebees on the planet ditches 2/3 of their waitstaff with on table tablets for ordering (I've seen it rolled out at some locations already).
We may slide out of it again this time, but at some point in the next century or so we're going to have to realize that there just isn't enough work for everyone to do, and we'll need to reorganize society along that.
There's also programs that may be inefficient or cost money that society decides are worth paying for anyway. Not everything needs to be about making a profit. Those programs should still be watched to ensure that are as efficient as possible, but they shouldn't necessarily be killed. Social Security is an example of that- there's no financial gains for keeping old people alive and sheltered, but its something society decides is a good idea.
Texas doesn't. That's an urban legend. What Texas did have the right to do was to be split into 4 smaller states. They've never exercised that right. But they never had the right to leave alltogether. Here's the exact resolution that joined Texas to the union:
http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/annex.htm
No, there was no right to secede. Nowhere in the Constitution is there mention of a way to leave the union. Also, the south started the shooting part of the war by attacking Fort Sumter, until then the north was trying to talk it through. So no, there was no northern aggression anywhere.
Civil war? They wouldn't understand that either- down there they call it "The War of Northern Aggression".
It's the CVV. Not all websites even ask for it, which is proof that it isn't needed.
ABout 2 years ago, I got a new credit card. I started making online purchases. A year later, I had a purchase rejected. Turns out that I used the wrong CVV- I used the CVV from the old card it replaced. I'd been using that CVV the whole time. I'd been using the wrong CVV for over a year, and this was the first time it had stopped the transaction.
Basically, almost no merchants check it.
Once again- a prime example of the problem with agile. Believes that it solves every problem, and his first reaction, rather than asking for details an analyzing, is to say "you're doing it wrong".