...despite the fact that the content was correct, but they were reproductions being promoted as the genuine article. That little loophole got Bush off the hook and ruined Rather's career.
Evidence? If the content was correct, you must have evidence that wasn't faked to that effect. I've never heard of any. If you know of evidence, I'm ready to listen. "Reproductions". Then where are the originals? The only evidence to these assertions I've ever seen are badly done fakes. That's not a "little loophole."
Yes, of course they're dead. Now, some businesses may be stupid enough to continue using a product that is unsupported, but that doesn't change the fact that they're dead.
It is legal for many cities to collect income tax--you are right, many cities do that. But not in Washington state, because the state constitution expressly prohibits it.
No, in ten years there won't be an income tax, because the courts will have struck it down. The Washington state constitution seems to be pretty clear on the matter. The city government will be noticeably poorer, however, what with not having the tax and being stuck with a bunch of legal fees.
Not really, because you get your deposits up front. You give somebody an umbrella only after they give you enough money to replace it. You give them the deposit back only after they give you the umbrella back, but even in that case you keep the rental fee. Unlike a Ponzi scheme, you don't have any unacknowledged obligations piling up that you can't cover. Now, if you can't get people to rent your umbrellas, you have a problem, just like any business that can't sell its products has a problem. But people keeping umbrellas isn't a problem.
The deposit is twice the cost of the umbrella. It's about $3, which should cover the cost of a cheap umbrella at least four times over, considering they sell for $1 in shops even outside China.
Then there's no problem. Use the deposits to buy new umbrellas, and you've got yourself a nice little business selling overpriced umbrellas.
(the USPTO was operating under first to file back then, not first to invent).
Say what? The USPTO has issued patents under the principle of first to invent since its founding, being almost the only national patent office to do so. It became first to file in 2013, well after the RAMBUS case (and still is so today).
Yes, I should have said mass-producer of automobiles. Aston Martin is over ten times the size of Morgan. According to Morgan, they current make "over 1300" a year, which would work out to over 25 a week.
Britain at one point didn't have any independent car manufacturers of its own, as Aston Martin was acquired by Ford in 1991. However, Ford divested it and it became an independent British company again in 2007.
In the USA they take away "free" travel lanes, then sell them back to you as carpool/HOV/HOT lanes. This creates scarcity and increases congestion in the existing lanes
Evidence, please. It is quite possible that the carpooling encouraged by this reduces the overall traffic so that the non-HOV lanes, while more congested than the HOV lanes, are less congested than they would be if there were no HOV lanes.
So it's doubtful that getting rid of toll lanes would increase congestion, rather it would restore highway capacity so traffic should flow better.
I find it quite plausible that HOV lanes would help. We have study here that confirms that. What do you have?
That is, if I replace a vehicle that gets 20 MPG with one that gets 40 MPG the 100% improvement in fuel economy is partially offset by the energy that went into producing the vehicle and possibly transport (especially for imports)
Not only that, but because it's cheaper to drive, you'll drive it more, offsetting the fuel economy even more. Which isn't to say better fuel economy isn't worth it, just that you won't get as much out of it as you think.
And here I would have thought humans would make the best CS preschool teachers. Ah, well. No doubt they're saving a fortune on salaries. Before you know it, they'll be taking our software development jobs too.
"out of self-interest". In other words, capitalism. Your first examples were before money existed, but still were made in the interest of profit; it was simply that the profit was in kind rather than in (non-existent) money. Capitalism does not require "outside funding", only the pursuit of profit. Self-funded capitalism, even when it's small amounts of money, is still capitalism.
Point one: VC, in spite of their name, are not the be-all and end-all of capitalism. Singling out a cherry-picked example and mischaracterizing it typical of an entire class is not a good argument.
Point two: Okay, your position is I'm wrong, and capitalism is not the best method for advancing innovation. Therefore, you must believe that something else is better. What is it?
Slashdot Mirror
"Kaspersky only pawn in game of life"
Evidence? If the content was correct, you must have evidence that wasn't faked to that effect. I've never heard of any. If you know of evidence, I'm ready to listen. "Reproductions". Then where are the originals? The only evidence to these assertions I've ever seen are badly done fakes. That's not a "little loophole."
Yes, of course they're dead. Now, some businesses may be stupid enough to continue using a product that is unsupported, but that doesn't change the fact that they're dead.
By "updated to 6" he means "I bought a new phone"
Just ask Dan Rather how that sort of thing plays out.
It is legal for many cities to collect income tax--you are right, many cities do that. But not in Washington state, because the state constitution expressly prohibits it.
No, in ten years there won't be an income tax, because the courts will have struck it down. The Washington state constitution seems to be pretty clear on the matter. The city government will be noticeably poorer, however, what with not having the tax and being stuck with a bunch of legal fees.
It's not a just a regular server. It's a server which won't run unless you constantly pay Microsoft!
Not really, because you get your deposits up front. You give somebody an umbrella only after they give you enough money to replace it. You give them the deposit back only after they give you the umbrella back, but even in that case you keep the rental fee. Unlike a Ponzi scheme, you don't have any unacknowledged obligations piling up that you can't cover. Now, if you can't get people to rent your umbrellas, you have a problem, just like any business that can't sell its products has a problem. But people keeping umbrellas isn't a problem.
Then there's no problem. Use the deposits to buy new umbrellas, and you've got yourself a nice little business selling overpriced umbrellas.
Did someone mention flying cars!?
Too complicated; just make the deposit twice the cost of the umbrella, and the incentive is gone.
What kind of clothes?
Yeah, but her boyfriend's a jerk.
Say what? The USPTO has issued patents under the principle of first to invent since its founding, being almost the only national patent office to do so. It became first to file in 2013, well after the RAMBUS case (and still is so today).
Yes, I should have said mass-producer of automobiles. Aston Martin is over ten times the size of Morgan. According to Morgan, they current make "over 1300" a year, which would work out to over 25 a week.
Britain at one point didn't have any independent car manufacturers of its own, as Aston Martin was acquired by Ford in 1991. However, Ford divested it and it became an independent British company again in 2007.
Your hosts file must be awesome.
Evidence, please. It is quite possible that the carpooling encouraged by this reduces the overall traffic so that the non-HOV lanes, while more congested than the HOV lanes, are less congested than they would be if there were no HOV lanes.
I find it quite plausible that HOV lanes would help. We have study here that confirms that. What do you have?
Not only that, but because it's cheaper to drive, you'll drive it more, offsetting the fuel economy even more. Which isn't to say better fuel economy isn't worth it, just that you won't get as much out of it as you think.
Engagement? Can't we just date first?
And here I would have thought humans would make the best CS preschool teachers. Ah, well. No doubt they're saving a fortune on salaries. Before you know it, they'll be taking our software development jobs too.
"out of self-interest". In other words, capitalism. Your first examples were before money existed, but still were made in the interest of profit; it was simply that the profit was in kind rather than in (non-existent) money. Capitalism does not require "outside funding", only the pursuit of profit. Self-funded capitalism, even when it's small amounts of money, is still capitalism.
Point one: VC, in spite of their name, are not the be-all and end-all of capitalism. Singling out a cherry-picked example and mischaracterizing it typical of an entire class is not a good argument.
Point two: Okay, your position is I'm wrong, and capitalism is not the best method for advancing innovation. Therefore, you must believe that something else is better. What is it?
The only way? No. A damn good way, probably the best way ever invented? Yes.
Indeed, the utter stagnation of society today is much talked about. Well-spotted, sir.