Since I'm not the IAU, I'm not going to create a definition that caters to pedants. You can replace "round" with "round under its own gravity" if that makes you happy.
100? Did you forget we found 3,700 planets outside the solar system already?
Besides, since when does the number of planets have to be limited? If it's round, made of regular matter and not a star, then does its location really matter?
Because representatives realistically cannot be expected to attend to the huge numbers of people they are supposed to represent, so they have to let difficulty filter it down to the ones who care the most.
Might as well setup a pay-to-contact system. Contribute $5 to the re-election fund and your voice gets heard by your rep. It already exists for the wealthy folks, so why not the regular folks too?
The only legit moral issue with the death penalty is that it's imperative to be completely sure you have a guilty man; admittedly, our system is awful at this.
Death penalty or not, the system should not convict the innocent at all. I makes me sad how many people harp on death penalty while happily allowing confessions and eye witnesses to be used at trials. Those have been proven to be easily manipulated and directly responsible for imprisoning the innocent. It's as if thousands of lifetimes behind bars is better than even one execution.
There's also the issue of settlements. Those basically allow the rich and powerful to skirt the law because the state can't be bothered to fight it all the way. Meanwhile, the poor with their overworked public defenders don't have the resources to fight the long battle, and, regardless of their innocence, have to settle for a plea bargain.
I think you have a slightly skewed view of cultural diversity. French and German are pretty similar when compared to Brazil or China. And the US has more of the latter kind of diversity.
At an ASP of $40K, that's about $18.5B in orders. That's a lot of money.
That's assuming people still want it after years of waiting. I think most people who ordered have old cars that they want to replace. Not immediately, but within a few years. If Tesla delays too long, then those people would be forced to buy other cars, just so they can have something to drive.
Tesla is losing money even before accounting for capital expenditures. Gross profit is $456 million, but operating and interest costs are more than twice that, leaving them with a $784 million net loss. Capital expenditures are another $655 million on top of that.
On Thursday 16th Nov, 2017, the Chief Executive of electric car maker Tesla, revealed a stunning new roadster which the company claims will be the “quickest production car ever made”.
If you can't afford rent, it's not the landlord's responsibility to lower the rent for you. Nobody has a birth-right to live in Manhattan, one of the most expensive places in the world. Besides, let's say the landlord does let you have it for cheap, then they're just screwing other potential renters.
Well, if they keep losing $3 billion between every profitable quarter, at some point they will run out of other people's money.
As for margin, they have a negative profit margin on the Model 3 right now. But even at 25% margin, 5000 cars a week is "only" $525 million. They still need twice that to cover cost of sale and operating costs.
Unfortunately, they're already in a bad spot, so they really need a big change to keep it afloat. Production numbers are still low at 2500 per week. Better than before, but not nearly enough. Their margin is not bad at 19%, but that's all coming from Model S and X. Even if Model 3 could reach that level, selling 5000 per week still only comes out to $344 million in gross profit. They would have to produce and sell triple that number to be in the black.
They didn't have any stock offerings this time, so most of the losses were covered by new debt. The remainder came from their enormous pile of $2 billion in cash.
By comparison, it only takes me 7 minutes to cook burgers. I can be done by the time I would be paying for the McDs. So, if I factor in time, home cooking looks even better. If I factor in quality of the result, McDs isn't even in the running.
Sounds like you're a much better cook than me. How come you're only making them for yourself? Make 10 burgers instead and sell the extras to your neighbors.
You typed a lot, but it's the same tired excuses adding up to little. Obviously since only a portion of consumers are making only minimum wage, the rise in price wouldn't negate the rise in income at the bottom.
Did you actually read my post? It's good for those minimum wage folks who can keep their job. The rest of us, especially poor ones, are still paying for it.
Raising minimum wage is a reasonable interim measure [in place of UBI].
It's really not. It hurts the unemployed and marginally employed because they're the ones who'll see bigger grocery bills. UBI only hurts people at the top.
As for economic efficiency, if a business cannot remain solvent without the rest of us subsidizing their payroll, it SHOULD fail.
That's fine, but you should prepare to import all the goods you actually need, and hope that you have an equally compelling export in some other industry to make up for it. Otherwise the entire country ends up poor.
If McDs was ACTUALLY more efficient than me preparing my own burgers at home, it would be cheaper than burgers cooked at home. That is simply not the case.
But it is. How long does it take you to buy the ingredients, clean and prepare them, then cook the burger? Is your time worthless?
Now, if they sold specialty rugs that had to be installed and where the vast majority of customers would buy the rug if and only if the rugs were installed by the Rug Store or their contractors, such that "buying a rug" was synonymous with "buying an installed rug" then they might have to W2 the installers.
What if you replace "rug" with "solar panels"?
The whole idea of "usual course of business" is silly. It's not a judge who determines what the business is, it's the business itself. Uber can be a taxi company, or it can be a ride-sharing company, or an automated job board with pre-negotiated rates. It can even be all 3 at the same time. The judge has no business playing the role of a CEO, and businesses shouldn't need to go to court to find out what business they're in.
The employees have more money, so they can afford to buy things, so businesses have more money.
Money is not value. By giving more money to these employees, you increase the price of goods they purchase, which comes out of both their and other people's pockets. The total amount of goods society as a whole can consume did not increase. You simply shifted some consumption from better-paid employees to the minimum wage ones.
That in itself is not a bad thing. But if that's all you care about, then the same could be accomplished by simply raising the income tax, then giving it to the lowest paid employees. In fact, you could do better by giving it to everyone, including the unemployed. This is UBI.
With minimum wage however, "the employees have more money" is only true if you can stay employed. Businesses could simply fail, or must layoff some to maintain solvency. Not all businesses are competing under the same minimum wage rules. Their competitors may be out-of-state. So they may not always be able to pass the costs onto the consumers by increasing prices.
Moreover, a class of work whose value is below minimum wage will simply not be done. Rather than eating out for example, people may elect to cook themselves. Unfortunately, they will be less efficient than someone whose job is to cook, because they're not specialized. So while they spend their evenings cooking instead of preparing for the next day, the would-be cook is twiddling their thumbs. As a whole, society becomes less efficient, and the total amount of goods produced (and thus consumed) is less.
If you don't think these problems can happen, then consider a proposal to raise the minimum wage to $1000 / hour. Are there any reasons it wouldn't work? If so, why wouldn't those reasons apply to a $25 / hour minimum wage?
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like a typical start to a software development career. Did you end up going that route?
Schools do not have the resources to deal with information security
There's your problem. Maybe they shouldn't be handling personal information that they're not equipped to handle?
If you are a high school student, you know it is a crime.
Why is the age of consent 18 then? Why can't you drink until 21?
Since I'm not the IAU, I'm not going to create a definition that caters to pedants. You can replace "round" with "round under its own gravity" if that makes you happy.
100? Did you forget we found 3,700 planets outside the solar system already?
Besides, since when does the number of planets have to be limited? If it's round, made of regular matter and not a star, then does its location really matter?
Because representatives realistically cannot be expected to attend to the huge numbers of people they are supposed to represent, so they have to let difficulty filter it down to the ones who care the most.
Might as well setup a pay-to-contact system. Contribute $5 to the re-election fund and your voice gets heard by your rep. It already exists for the wealthy folks, so why not the regular folks too?
One of these days, they'll discover bleeding-edge technologies such as web forms and email, thus rendering the chatbots obsolete.
Deterrence doesn't work. Name a single point in time where specific types of crime were reduced purely due to "making an example of someone".
Literally every single dictator, against their political opponents, for the crime of opposing them. Kim Jung Un's uncle is a recent example.
Then there's places like Singapore, where you get lashes for littering. The end result? There is no litter on the roads of Singapore.
The only legit moral issue with the death penalty is that it's imperative to be completely sure you have a guilty man; admittedly, our system is awful at this.
Death penalty or not, the system should not convict the innocent at all. I makes me sad how many people harp on death penalty while happily allowing confessions and eye witnesses to be used at trials. Those have been proven to be easily manipulated and directly responsible for imprisoning the innocent. It's as if thousands of lifetimes behind bars is better than even one execution.
There's also the issue of settlements. Those basically allow the rich and powerful to skirt the law because the state can't be bothered to fight it all the way. Meanwhile, the poor with their overworked public defenders don't have the resources to fight the long battle, and, regardless of their innocence, have to settle for a plea bargain.
It's implied by Janet's behavior.
Since there's 300k views on this, I assume at least some people would like to see it.
If the mere use of machines makes the competition uninteresting, then nobody would be watching Formula 1 or NASCAR.
Why stop at oxford comma? Go all the way to bullet points.
At the business conference, the envious Janet looked at Amelia, then put out her hand with a bright smile.
Typing double spaces doesn't come for free. The time they spent pressing the space bar could be used to make their sentences more concise.
Better Comic Sans than Wingdings.
I think you have a slightly skewed view of cultural diversity. French and German are pretty similar when compared to Brazil or China. And the US has more of the latter kind of diversity.
At an ASP of $40K, that's about $18.5B in orders. That's a lot of money.
That's assuming people still want it after years of waiting. I think most people who ordered have old cars that they want to replace. Not immediately, but within a few years. If Tesla delays too long, then those people would be forced to buy other cars, just so they can have something to drive.
Go read their actual Q1 report.
Tesla is losing money even before accounting for capital expenditures. Gross profit is $456 million, but operating and interest costs are more than twice that, leaving them with a $784 million net loss. Capital expenditures are another $655 million on top of that.
On Thursday 16th Nov, 2017, the Chief Executive of electric car maker Tesla, revealed a stunning new roadster which the company claims will be the “quickest production car ever made”.
I'm guessing that's in the drag race, not in a circuit. But then again, in a drag race a Ferrari is no match for a "bike".
If you can't afford rent, it's not the landlord's responsibility to lower the rent for you. Nobody has a birth-right to live in Manhattan, one of the most expensive places in the world. Besides, let's say the landlord does let you have it for cheap, then they're just screwing other potential renters.
Well, if they keep losing $3 billion between every profitable quarter, at some point they will run out of other people's money.
As for margin, they have a negative profit margin on the Model 3 right now. But even at 25% margin, 5000 cars a week is "only" $525 million. They still need twice that to cover cost of sale and operating costs.
I previously wrote about Tesla's troubles based on their Q4 results. Looking at Q1, it seems like nothing's changed.
Unfortunately, they're already in a bad spot, so they really need a big change to keep it afloat. Production numbers are still low at 2500 per week. Better than before, but not nearly enough. Their margin is not bad at 19%, but that's all coming from Model S and X. Even if Model 3 could reach that level, selling 5000 per week still only comes out to $344 million in gross profit. They would have to produce and sell triple that number to be in the black.
They didn't have any stock offerings this time, so most of the losses were covered by new debt. The remainder came from their enormous pile of $2 billion in cash.
By comparison, it only takes me 7 minutes to cook burgers. I can be done by the time I would be paying for the McDs. So, if I factor in time, home cooking looks even better. If I factor in quality of the result, McDs isn't even in the running.
Sounds like you're a much better cook than me. How come you're only making them for yourself? Make 10 burgers instead and sell the extras to your neighbors.
You typed a lot, but it's the same tired excuses adding up to little. Obviously since only a portion of consumers are making only minimum wage, the rise in price wouldn't negate the rise in income at the bottom.
Did you actually read my post? It's good for those minimum wage folks who can keep their job. The rest of us, especially poor ones, are still paying for it.
Raising minimum wage is a reasonable interim measure [in place of UBI].
It's really not. It hurts the unemployed and marginally employed because they're the ones who'll see bigger grocery bills. UBI only hurts people at the top.
As for economic efficiency, if a business cannot remain solvent without the rest of us subsidizing their payroll, it SHOULD fail.
That's fine, but you should prepare to import all the goods you actually need, and hope that you have an equally compelling export in some other industry to make up for it. Otherwise the entire country ends up poor.
If McDs was ACTUALLY more efficient than me preparing my own burgers at home, it would be cheaper than burgers cooked at home. That is simply not the case.
But it is. How long does it take you to buy the ingredients, clean and prepare them, then cook the burger? Is your time worthless?
Now, if they sold specialty rugs that had to be installed and where the vast majority of customers would buy the rug if and only if the rugs were installed by the Rug Store or their contractors, such that "buying a rug" was synonymous with "buying an installed rug" then they might have to W2 the installers.
What if you replace "rug" with "solar panels"?
The whole idea of "usual course of business" is silly. It's not a judge who determines what the business is, it's the business itself. Uber can be a taxi company, or it can be a ride-sharing company, or an automated job board with pre-negotiated rates. It can even be all 3 at the same time. The judge has no business playing the role of a CEO, and businesses shouldn't need to go to court to find out what business they're in.
The employees have more money, so they can afford to buy things, so businesses have more money.
Money is not value. By giving more money to these employees, you increase the price of goods they purchase, which comes out of both their and other people's pockets. The total amount of goods society as a whole can consume did not increase. You simply shifted some consumption from better-paid employees to the minimum wage ones.
That in itself is not a bad thing. But if that's all you care about, then the same could be accomplished by simply raising the income tax, then giving it to the lowest paid employees. In fact, you could do better by giving it to everyone, including the unemployed. This is UBI.
With minimum wage however, "the employees have more money" is only true if you can stay employed. Businesses could simply fail, or must layoff some to maintain solvency. Not all businesses are competing under the same minimum wage rules. Their competitors may be out-of-state. So they may not always be able to pass the costs onto the consumers by increasing prices.
Moreover, a class of work whose value is below minimum wage will simply not be done. Rather than eating out for example, people may elect to cook themselves. Unfortunately, they will be less efficient than someone whose job is to cook, because they're not specialized. So while they spend their evenings cooking instead of preparing for the next day, the would-be cook is twiddling their thumbs. As a whole, society becomes less efficient, and the total amount of goods produced (and thus consumed) is less.
If you don't think these problems can happen, then consider a proposal to raise the minimum wage to $1000 / hour. Are there any reasons it wouldn't work? If so, why wouldn't those reasons apply to a $25 / hour minimum wage?