They probably figured that people who don't really care would rather be listed, but were unlikely to pay for it specifically. Assuming they have to hire people/design a system to list some numbers and not others, they pushed the cost onto people who would be willing to pay. Yawn.
Why it's a monthly instead of a one-time fee, I couldn't tell you. Trying to make a continuous revenue stream out of privacy fanatics I guess.
Because you saw the words "room-temperature" and you missed the last sentence of the first paragraph where it says the findings were published in one of the most widely respected peer reviewed journals?
This is a trademark, not a copyright, so there's no license to grant. If you don't defend it against all attacks, you lose the trademark and cannot defend it against any attacks.
IANAL, etc. but this was my understanding of one of the critical differences between patents, copyright, and trademarks.
If you're in an IT department of an org with any Linux machines, you may be allowed to access port 22 on the internet. Get the cheapest hosting you can find (I have a tiny VPS for $10 per year). PuTTY runs in userspace so you're likely not prevented from downloading it, so use dynamic port forwarding as a SOCKS5 proxy.
The endpoint DLP will still catch things like credit cards/SSNs/monetary values/addresses/client names, but the proxy won't have your browsing history so you can read things which are blocked by your ironport ISA.
By that logic, security by obscurity is actually just fine security, because most people on the internet don't know how to do much besides googling default ports and passwords...
The only reason to oppose this (which I would but I don't live in Cali so who cares?) is that you have to pay someone for going to gun manufacturers and saying "let me see your microstamping equipment and tests please." Sign me up for that at 50k+, or better yet his "supervisor" at 100k+
The money here went to Apple and Amazon (shareholders and execs, which is a separate discussion) for developing new legal pricing strategies and distribution channels that did not and could not exist before. On the musician side, recently money has been pouring in floods to House DJs who wouldn't have been given a chance on mainstream radio in the 90s.
In other words, some people got very rich off of making something new very cheap for everyone else in a new way. There was a loser, like there always is, in some musicians and traditional labels, but the loser was making money off inefficiencies in consumer access to music, which is arbitrage and inherently risky.
You're right. The Irish have no history of violence against "other" people at all. Nothing bad has ever happened in Ireland. They never even had terrorists!
oh wait... I left out decades of 20th century Irish history in order to make a point. My bad.
Securing cockpit doors before passenger boarding? When's the last time you were on a plane? I fly weekly around the US and occasionally internationally and can't remember an instance in the past year when the cockpit was locked before everyone was on the plane. Usually it's just before the boarding door is closed.
At any rate, it doesn't affect security, as you can't really hijack a plane which does not have the engines on and is parked at the gate.... Most domestic flights have the crew on board maybe 10-15 minutes before passengers begin boarding and pilots do need to go through a checklist with flight attendants.
It doesn't matter if they work 1000 times as hard or contribute 1000 times as much to society. It matters that people in general want them to do what they do 1000 times as much as they want you to do what you do.
Wealth generation is making something other entities want. This always boils down to people at the lowest level but governments, companies, etc. can be the specific entity you deal with.
Remember that you're not being paid for the work you perform. You are (should be) being paid for how much OTHER people want the outputs of your work.
I'm sorry, but you missed a key part of Attila's comment. The Republican plan increased effective tax rates. It lowered marginal tax rates. This means that next year, if everyone makes the same amount of money, the treasury gets more dollars than it did this year. If they all make more, the treasury gets less than it would have before (but still more than this year), but if they all make less, the treasury gets more than it would have before (but still less than this year, with a buffer of about $250B). I'll point you to my own previous comment about the obsession Democrats have with the marginal rate as opposed to the effective rate (except when Warren Buffett is agitating for tax increases) here
But... the amount of money collected on a static basis (i.e. if people spend their money in exactly the same ways next year as they do this year) goes up for the highest bracket in the Republican plan out of the committee. What changes is the marginal rate: the amount of money the gov't gets on any additional money they earn next year. Note that conversely the amount of money the gov't loses on any less money they earn next year goes down as well.
For that reason, cutting some deductions and lowering all rates (yes, including non-top ones) in a way that appears revenue neutral or slightly positive from a static basis should, if not as a good thing, at least be seen as a not-bad thing. For those who don't take itemized deductions, the reduction in rates is cash money to spend on the consumer side. For those who do take deductions (mostly small business owners or wealthy individuals, although as someone else stated those who have a mortgage tend to fall in this category also) the things they used to deduct but cannot anymore will be more expensive. However, the net return on those expenses will be higher, as the return is taxed at a lower marginal rate. The buzz-phrase for this is "tax code efficiency."
In the end, the parent of this comment falls into a rage trap that is very easy to miss: that reducing marginal tax rates on a group is equivalent to reducing effective tax rates. The entire point of the new revenues trade was to increase the effective tax rate on today's incomes while decreasing the marginal tax rate for the reasons described above.
Democrats have decided that only the marginal rate matters. That giving up X percent of the next $1 an individual makes is not something to be sought. It's not even too hard to see why: by definition the way to make up a difference between 39.6% of income over 350,000 and 35% of it is to increase income over 350,000, or in Democratic party terms "make the rich richer." Unfortunately they forget the other way to do this, which is "create more taxpayers with incomes of 350,000+," i.e. increase the income of some people in lower tax brackets.
A final thought to remember is that income is wealth generation, NOT just money being passed around from a fixed pool. Income is (should be...) the value of what you do/create as seen by the person paying you, and as everyone is capable of doing more valuable things, more wealth is created in the world. Money is just an abstraction, a full definition and theory of which can be found in your favorite economics textbook.
Ron Paul talks endlessly about ending all wars and bringing the US into a militarily isolationist stance. You can dish on him for all sorts of things, but not this one, since he talks about slashing the military budget all the time.
It almost makes you wonder how this got modded insightful...
While they do need to keep you satisfied, it's only because you're a new type of product that isn't mined or manufactured, but attracted with useful or at least enjoyable timesinks. You're still the product, even if their method of obtaining the product doesn't have analog in the physical world.
You think that begging a congressman for seed capital is a better way to build a society than presenting a business case to people who actually get paid based on successful investments? Or that we'd have less risk by centralizing the decision making behind every investment made in this country?
Unfortunately, computers are designed to make people's lives easier, not infinitely more complicated.
When my mom installs Firefox, she doesn't how to choose a folder for cookies, or where the cache can reside, or where she can download files to, or where the plugins are (or what a plugin is...). Quite frankly, she doesn't care to learn these things, we programmers should "just make it work" for her. She doesn't have to know how a car works does she?
You can't really try to enforce this "massive undertaking" without getting rid of a lot of the reasons that normal people like to use computers.
It actually says you have to pay a penalty, and part of the argument that "this bill raises no taxes" is that it wasn't a tax. A justice cannot (should not?) read "tax" into a bill where "penalty" is written. To my mind, that argument is disingenuous. Of course who really knows what will happen, and lots of people know more about interpreting the Constitution than I do.
On the other hand, it is an open question whether or not this is Congress regulating commerce "among the several States" as now you are not allowed to purchase health insurance across state lines, making it (for the most part, mobility of the population and so on) an intrastate issue as opposed to an interstate one. Nevertheless I'm not well informed about the way healthcare prices are set in the market, and so if a single state's dropping the mandate would significantly affect other states' healthcare costs the argument becomes much more interesting. That's where I expect the majority of the claims with no factual basis and the strongest words to be thrown around.
The argument will be inherently partisan, since even a substantiated claim like "prices (went up | went down | stayed the same) in state X when insurance coverage (increased | decreased) in state Y" is still not a causal relationship. It will definitely be an interesting case.
Criminally I agree that the penalties are effectively nothing, but I might direct you to Mike Nifong who has been disbarred and is facing further civil lawsuits. While his criminal contempt charge landed him a token fine and a day in jail, the others are pretty serious penalties considering he can no longer do the only job he is (was) qualified for and cannot afford to defend himself against the other lawsuits.
Of course, it takes money to take down a prosecutor...
(which it should not, the evidence is about as weak as someone ordering explosives to some address and you arrest the person living at that address even though anyone could pick them up because they're just delivered to the porch).
I have a friend who was arrested for exactly this. Someone tried to porch-pickup drugs delivered to his house. A swat team rolled in, strip searched 8 college kids, and arrested one. He was cleared literally less than a week later.
The real question we all had was, after they had checked the house and found no weapons or drugs of any kind aside from the ones on the porch, why did they still feel obligated to strip search 8 20 year olds? The answer, as announced by a female officer, was "I love this power."
Say what you want about cops who have to deal with armed criminals on a daily basis, there are plenty of them who are also just assholes.
I'd say that wind turbines are much quicker to build (2-3 years?) than nuclear plants, so why on earth would you need
- use nuclear as a stopgap for renewable/fusion
for anyway.
Because electricity storage is inefficient. Wind power generates electricity, but only when the wind is blowing (obviously). When the wind stops blowing, you need to have stores of excess electricity in order to continue powering things like hospitals and backup systems for nearby nuclear power plants. Unfortunately, storing that electricity loses some of that electricity, although I don't have data on the rate. Nevertheless, the huge amount of excess capacity you'd need to store enough energy to maintain service is too costly in both money and land, which is why wind power is widespread despite the fact that the industry has an array of governmental supports, from tax incentives to exclusive contracts.
Would you tell young people that Social Security won't be there for them when they are elderly, and then tell them to keep paying in anyway?
Yes. In fact, as a young person, I'm already resigned to the fact that I'm paying for social security and when I retire at 70ish (because that's what the age will have to be then) I will not be receiving benefits from it because there will be no money. It'd be better to lay the news on the rest of the country now than have people try to plan retirement around benefits that will almost certainly no longer exist.
Slashdot Mirror
They probably figured that people who don't really care would rather be listed, but were unlikely to pay for it specifically. Assuming they have to hire people/design a system to list some numbers and not others, they pushed the cost onto people who would be willing to pay. Yawn.
Why it's a monthly instead of a one-time fee, I couldn't tell you. Trying to make a continuous revenue stream out of privacy fanatics I guess.
Because you saw the words "room-temperature" and you missed the last sentence of the first paragraph where it says the findings were published in one of the most widely respected peer reviewed journals?
;)
Or just didn't read TFA
This is a trademark, not a copyright, so there's no license to grant. If you don't defend it against all attacks, you lose the trademark and cannot defend it against any attacks.
IANAL, etc. but this was my understanding of one of the critical differences between patents, copyright, and trademarks.
If you're in an IT department of an org with any Linux machines, you may be allowed to access port 22 on the internet. Get the cheapest hosting you can find (I have a tiny VPS for $10 per year). PuTTY runs in userspace so you're likely not prevented from downloading it, so use dynamic port forwarding as a SOCKS5 proxy.
The endpoint DLP will still catch things like credit cards/SSNs/monetary values/addresses/client names, but the proxy won't have your browsing history so you can read things which are blocked by your ironport ISA.
equally retarded friends.
Retarded people are human beings. You have an interesting definition of respect.
By that logic, security by obscurity is actually just fine security, because most people on the internet don't know how to do much besides googling default ports and passwords...
The only reason to oppose this (which I would but I don't live in Cali so who cares?) is that you have to pay someone for going to gun manufacturers and saying "let me see your microstamping equipment and tests please." Sign me up for that at 50k+, or better yet his "supervisor" at 100k+
As an interesting semi-related question, where does this logic lead when applied to disclosure of political donors?
It's interesting when something "obvious" in one sphere is much more complex in another because someone else's money is involved.
I reject your false choice.
The money here went to Apple and Amazon (shareholders and execs, which is a separate discussion) for developing new legal pricing strategies and distribution channels that did not and could not exist before. On the musician side, recently money has been pouring in floods to House DJs who wouldn't have been given a chance on mainstream radio in the 90s.
In other words, some people got very rich off of making something new very cheap for everyone else in a new way. There was a loser, like there always is, in some musicians and traditional labels, but the loser was making money off inefficiencies in consumer access to music, which is arbitrage and inherently risky.
There doesn't always have to be a bad guy...
You're right. The Irish have no history of violence against "other" people at all. Nothing bad has ever happened in Ireland. They never even had terrorists!
oh wait... I left out decades of 20th century Irish history in order to make a point. My bad.
Securing cockpit doors before passenger boarding? When's the last time you were on a plane? I fly weekly around the US and occasionally internationally and can't remember an instance in the past year when the cockpit was locked before everyone was on the plane. Usually it's just before the boarding door is closed.
At any rate, it doesn't affect security, as you can't really hijack a plane which does not have the engines on and is parked at the gate.... Most domestic flights have the crew on board maybe 10-15 minutes before passengers begin boarding and pilots do need to go through a checklist with flight attendants.
It doesn't matter if they work 1000 times as hard or contribute 1000 times as much to society. It matters that people in general want them to do what they do 1000 times as much as they want you to do what you do. Wealth generation is making something other entities want. This always boils down to people at the lowest level but governments, companies, etc. can be the specific entity you deal with. Remember that you're not being paid for the work you perform. You are (should be) being paid for how much OTHER people want the outputs of your work.
I love the idea of a death tax. It disincentivizes death!
I'm sorry, but you missed a key part of Attila's comment. The Republican plan increased effective tax rates. It lowered marginal tax rates. This means that next year, if everyone makes the same amount of money, the treasury gets more dollars than it did this year. If they all make more, the treasury gets less than it would have before (but still more than this year), but if they all make less, the treasury gets more than it would have before (but still less than this year, with a buffer of about $250B). I'll point you to my own previous comment about the obsession Democrats have with the marginal rate as opposed to the effective rate (except when Warren Buffett is agitating for tax increases) here
But... the amount of money collected on a static basis (i.e. if people spend their money in exactly the same ways next year as they do this year) goes up for the highest bracket in the Republican plan out of the committee. What changes is the marginal rate: the amount of money the gov't gets on any additional money they earn next year. Note that conversely the amount of money the gov't loses on any less money they earn next year goes down as well.
For that reason, cutting some deductions and lowering all rates (yes, including non-top ones) in a way that appears revenue neutral or slightly positive from a static basis should, if not as a good thing, at least be seen as a not-bad thing. For those who don't take itemized deductions, the reduction in rates is cash money to spend on the consumer side. For those who do take deductions (mostly small business owners or wealthy individuals, although as someone else stated those who have a mortgage tend to fall in this category also) the things they used to deduct but cannot anymore will be more expensive. However, the net return on those expenses will be higher, as the return is taxed at a lower marginal rate. The buzz-phrase for this is "tax code efficiency."
In the end, the parent of this comment falls into a rage trap that is very easy to miss: that reducing marginal tax rates on a group is equivalent to reducing effective tax rates. The entire point of the new revenues trade was to increase the effective tax rate on today's incomes while decreasing the marginal tax rate for the reasons described above.
Democrats have decided that only the marginal rate matters. That giving up X percent of the next $1 an individual makes is not something to be sought. It's not even too hard to see why: by definition the way to make up a difference between 39.6% of income over 350,000 and 35% of it is to increase income over 350,000, or in Democratic party terms "make the rich richer." Unfortunately they forget the other way to do this, which is "create more taxpayers with incomes of 350,000+," i.e. increase the income of some people in lower tax brackets.
A final thought to remember is that income is wealth generation, NOT just money being passed around from a fixed pool. Income is (should be...) the value of what you do/create as seen by the person paying you, and as everyone is capable of doing more valuable things, more wealth is created in the world. Money is just an abstraction, a full definition and theory of which can be found in your favorite economics textbook.
Ron Paul talks endlessly about ending all wars and bringing the US into a militarily isolationist stance. You can dish on him for all sorts of things, but not this one, since he talks about slashing the military budget all the time.
It almost makes you wonder how this got modded insightful...
While they do need to keep you satisfied, it's only because you're a new type of product that isn't mined or manufactured, but attracted with useful or at least enjoyable timesinks. You're still the product, even if their method of obtaining the product doesn't have analog in the physical world.
You think that begging a congressman for seed capital is a better way to build a society than presenting a business case to people who actually get paid based on successful investments? Or that we'd have less risk by centralizing the decision making behind every investment made in this country?
Unfortunately, computers are designed to make people's lives easier, not infinitely more complicated.
When my mom installs Firefox, she doesn't how to choose a folder for cookies, or where the cache can reside, or where she can download files to, or where the plugins are (or what a plugin is...). Quite frankly, she doesn't care to learn these things, we programmers should "just make it work" for her. She doesn't have to know how a car works does she?
You can't really try to enforce this "massive undertaking" without getting rid of a lot of the reasons that normal people like to use computers.
It actually says you have to pay a penalty, and part of the argument that "this bill raises no taxes" is that it wasn't a tax. A justice cannot (should not?) read "tax" into a bill where "penalty" is written. To my mind, that argument is disingenuous. Of course who really knows what will happen, and lots of people know more about interpreting the Constitution than I do.
On the other hand, it is an open question whether or not this is Congress regulating commerce "among the several States" as now you are not allowed to purchase health insurance across state lines, making it (for the most part, mobility of the population and so on) an intrastate issue as opposed to an interstate one. Nevertheless I'm not well informed about the way healthcare prices are set in the market, and so if a single state's dropping the mandate would significantly affect other states' healthcare costs the argument becomes much more interesting. That's where I expect the majority of the claims with no factual basis and the strongest words to be thrown around.
The argument will be inherently partisan, since even a substantiated claim like "prices (went up | went down | stayed the same) in state X when insurance coverage (increased | decreased) in state Y" is still not a causal relationship. It will definitely be an interesting case.
(b) complete immunity for prosecutors.
Criminally I agree that the penalties are effectively nothing, but I might direct you to Mike Nifong who has been disbarred and is facing further civil lawsuits. While his criminal contempt charge landed him a token fine and a day in jail, the others are pretty serious penalties considering he can no longer do the only job he is (was) qualified for and cannot afford to defend himself against the other lawsuits.
Of course, it takes money to take down a prosecutor...
Thank god they called him a pedophile then, otherwise things might have gotten ugly!
(which it should not, the evidence is about as weak as someone ordering explosives to some address and you arrest the person living at that address even though anyone could pick them up because they're just delivered to the porch).
I have a friend who was arrested for exactly this. Someone tried to porch-pickup drugs delivered to his house. A swat team rolled in, strip searched 8 college kids, and arrested one. He was cleared literally less than a week later. The real question we all had was, after they had checked the house and found no weapons or drugs of any kind aside from the ones on the porch, why did they still feel obligated to strip search 8 20 year olds? The answer, as announced by a female officer, was "I love this power." Say what you want about cops who have to deal with armed criminals on a daily basis, there are plenty of them who are also just assholes.
I'd say that wind turbines are much quicker to build (2-3 years?) than nuclear plants, so why on earth would you need
for anyway.
Because electricity storage is inefficient. Wind power generates electricity, but only when the wind is blowing (obviously). When the wind stops blowing, you need to have stores of excess electricity in order to continue powering things like hospitals and backup systems for nearby nuclear power plants. Unfortunately, storing that electricity loses some of that electricity, although I don't have data on the rate. Nevertheless, the huge amount of excess capacity you'd need to store enough energy to maintain service is too costly in both money and land, which is why wind power is widespread despite the fact that the industry has an array of governmental supports, from tax incentives to exclusive contracts.
You are welcome to make a gift to the government: http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html
Would you tell young people that Social Security won't be there for them when they are elderly, and then tell them to keep paying in anyway?
Yes. In fact, as a young person, I'm already resigned to the fact that I'm paying for social security and when I retire at 70ish (because that's what the age will have to be then) I will not be receiving benefits from it because there will be no money. It'd be better to lay the news on the rest of the country now than have people try to plan retirement around benefits that will almost certainly no longer exist.