$1620/day ~= $8215/week (5day work week) or ~= $9858 (6day work week, not uncommon for contract workers) $8215/week ~= $427180/year(52 * 5day work weeks, no vacation) or $512616/year (52 * 6 day work weeks, no vacation)
So yes. close to a half million a year isn't that far off for a back of the napkin estimate.
The difference here is that the frequency put out by a cell phone isn't capable of causing any direct change at a microscopic scale, period. For it to affect anything, you need an antenna of sufficient size and conductivity. And it was a fairly reasonable (though possibly erroneous) assumption that we do not have those naturally occurring in our brains.
Its to busy being a fatal heavy metal poison to allow you to live long enough to get cancer. But you might get cancer if you survived the fatal dose of lead poisoning? Who knows.
Funny thing is that I read a national geographic article about a primitive tribe that did just this. Drug the cow, cut out a strip of flesh (mostly fat and skin) and sew it back up.
Exactly. It also isn't practical for me because I don't have the free time to hunt for all my meat or the money and property to raise/buy live animals.
I dislike him because he is a duchebag, a liar, a cheat and someone who uses friends, allies and total strangers alike without regard for their rights or well being.
I grew up in a hunting and fishing household. I've long held the belief that you appreciate you food more if you kill it yourself. I hate to say it because I really dislike Zuckerberg, but he has something going here. If I had the disposable income and free time to procure live animals on a regular basis I would probably do this as well.
I blame that mostly on the languages not being explicit about what operations and methods are or are not thread safe. And for capable programmers those errors generally only occur when you try to make things more efficient by avoiding excess mutex and data duplication in the pursuit of efficiency.
I am kinda curious how anyone even tangentially involved in programming could not be aware that the problem with writing parallel programming was doing it for a gain in efficiency. Making a thread or process is generally just a couple lines of code, synchronization with data separation, mutex's and avoiding deadlocks and race conditions has been solved since almost the beginning of parallelism.
Subsidies are not relevant. They are only "indirect regulation" in so far as regulation is anything the government does that impacts a business. And it is painfully obvious that the regulation I am referring to is not of the indirect subsidy variety.
No, you are the one not reading the article. That paragraph mentions anti-trust as a consequence of him falling out of favor despite never seeking subsidy and earning his wealth the hard way.. That was it's whole purpose. There is no critique at all, anywhere in there about anti-trust or any form of actual direct regulation.Only for the subsidy and resulting rent seeking among failed business men.
There is no sense in continuing because you are wrong. Your article is not relevant.
I more than just skimmed the article. Anti-trust is mentioned once, 90% of the way through the article, in one tiny paragraph about Rockefeller, that was also about him not seeking a subsidy. The article is entirely about subsidy, not anti trust or any regulation intended to protect people from harm. So yeh. That article really isn't relevant at all to what I am saying.
I am not confusing them. I just believe that libertarians are pawns being groomed to aid in the path back to serfdom. You are seeking personal liberty by dismantling the social structures that limit the ability of the extremely wealthy from taking your liberty for profit.
We do need a strong central government (one that is also strongly constitutionally limited). The government needs to be BETTER, not larger or smaller. I agree with many libertarian ideals, but the agenda should not be to dismantle the government. We need to take our freedoms back, but the agenda of the libertarian movement trades one master and infringement of liberty for another.
And? Your article is not relevant. Your article is about subsidy, not regulation. I am a capitalist, not a communist. I advocate regulation, not subsidy.
Libertarians advocate the removal of ALL regulation. Not just monopolies, copyrights and "unfair" regulation. Regulation is the only thing that brought the robber barons of the 19th and early 20th century down and made it possible for people to trust that they were not being poisoned on a regular basis to shave a few pennies off of production costs. Pure capitalism can only work if everyone is completely informed and not coerced, the problem is that in pure capitalism it pays better to be deceptive and use force.
Better regulation (not necessarily more or less regulation) is required to avoid or at least reduce serfdom at the hands of the owner class in a capitalistic society. The alternatives are a command economy or serfdom. I for one do not like either of those alternatives. Regulated capitalism is the best and possibly only way to ensure a reasonably full measure of personal liberty.
Voting libertarian is not the answer. The libertarian party is only an experiment by the owning class to use the desire for freedom to disenfranchise the masses for personal gain. Government needs a certain amount of strength to protect people from economic predation and the return to a class based society where most people are virtual or actual slaves.
There are no parties that actually represent the people and seek to empower their freedom. We need a party that believes in personal liberty but also promotes policy to the benefit of the people instead of corporate entities that serve as the proxies of power for the elite ruling class. Democrats fail. Libertarians fail. Republicans OMG WTF fail. Greens fail just as hard as republicans, but in a different direction.
The problem with your argument is that Polanski's crime isn't statutory rape. Its was forcible rape with assault (he beat her into submission) and sodomy that happened to be of a 13 year old girl.
"Use" of a "patent" involves creating something that implements the patent. The "use" we are talking about is the use of something that implements the patent (the app store and its upgrade API). If you implement a "fancy hammer" patent you need to license it when you make the fancy hammer. But the guy driving nails does not need a license.
The system that uses this patent is created and managed by apple. The app developers are merely using that system.
Slashdot Mirror
It already is. There were ads put out by the MPAA a few years ago stating there was a link between pirated movies and Al Queda.
That is correct, when it becomes cruel and routine, it is no longer unconstitutional. Just see Guantanamo for reference.
Ranges on EV these days are 30 to 300 km rather than 6.
£1 ~= $1.643
£1000/day ~= $1643/day
$1620/day ~= $8215/week (5day work week) or ~= $9858 (6day work week, not uncommon for contract workers)
$8215/week ~= $427180/year(52 * 5day work weeks, no vacation) or $512616/year (52 * 6 day work weeks, no vacation)
So yes. close to a half million a year isn't that far off for a back of the napkin estimate.
The difference here is that the frequency put out by a cell phone isn't capable of causing any direct change at a microscopic scale, period. For it to affect anything, you need an antenna of sufficient size and conductivity. And it was a fairly reasonable (though possibly erroneous) assumption that we do not have those naturally occurring in our brains.
Its to busy being a fatal heavy metal poison to allow you to live long enough to get cancer. But you might get cancer if you survived the fatal dose of lead poisoning? Who knows.
I do live in an apartment at the moment. So no, I can't really have some chickens running around.
I know it is about appreciating your food. My post 4 levels up said exactly that.
The post you are responding to is responding to the post about the practicality of the matter.
Funny thing is that I read a national geographic article about a primitive tribe that did just this. Drug the cow, cut out a strip of flesh (mostly fat and skin) and sew it back up.
Exactly. It also isn't practical for me because I don't have the free time to hunt for all my meat or the money and property to raise/buy live animals.
I dislike him because he is a duchebag, a liar, a cheat and someone who uses friends, allies and total strangers alike without regard for their rights or well being.
You can if they swing that way.
I grew up in a hunting and fishing household. I've long held the belief that you appreciate you food more if you kill it yourself. I hate to say it because I really dislike Zuckerberg, but he has something going here. If I had the disposable income and free time to procure live animals on a regular basis I would probably do this as well.
I blame that mostly on the languages not being explicit about what operations and methods are or are not thread safe. And for capable programmers those errors generally only occur when you try to make things more efficient by avoiding excess mutex and data duplication in the pursuit of efficiency.
I am kinda curious how anyone even tangentially involved in programming could not be aware that the problem with writing parallel programming was doing it for a gain in efficiency. Making a thread or process is generally just a couple lines of code, synchronization with data separation, mutex's and avoiding deadlocks and race conditions has been solved since almost the beginning of parallelism.
Subsidies are not relevant. They are only "indirect regulation" in so far as regulation is anything the government does that impacts a business. And it is painfully obvious that the regulation I am referring to is not of the indirect subsidy variety.
No, you are the one not reading the article. That paragraph mentions anti-trust as a consequence of him falling out of favor despite never seeking subsidy and earning his wealth the hard way.. That was it's whole purpose. There is no critique at all, anywhere in there about anti-trust or any form of actual direct regulation.Only for the subsidy and resulting rent seeking among failed business men.
There is no sense in continuing because you are wrong. Your article is not relevant.
I more than just skimmed the article. Anti-trust is mentioned once, 90% of the way through the article, in one tiny paragraph about Rockefeller, that was also about him not seeking a subsidy. The article is entirely about subsidy, not anti trust or any regulation intended to protect people from harm. So yeh. That article really isn't relevant at all to what I am saying.
I am not confusing them. I just believe that libertarians are pawns being groomed to aid in the path back to serfdom. You are seeking personal liberty by dismantling the social structures that limit the ability of the extremely wealthy from taking your liberty for profit.
We do need a strong central government (one that is also strongly constitutionally limited). The government needs to be BETTER, not larger or smaller. I agree with many libertarian ideals, but the agenda should not be to dismantle the government. We need to take our freedoms back, but the agenda of the libertarian movement trades one master and infringement of liberty for another.
And? Your article is not relevant. Your article is about subsidy, not regulation. I am a capitalist, not a communist. I advocate regulation, not subsidy.
A: Because the use of trademarks associated with a company is perfectly legal in the context of a news story about that company.
B: I don't need a B. But a company is NOT entitled to use the courts to prevent "harm" caused by the public becoming aware of their own failures.
Libertarians advocate the removal of ALL regulation. Not just monopolies, copyrights and "unfair" regulation. Regulation is the only thing that brought the robber barons of the 19th and early 20th century down and made it possible for people to trust that they were not being poisoned on a regular basis to shave a few pennies off of production costs. Pure capitalism can only work if everyone is completely informed and not coerced, the problem is that in pure capitalism it pays better to be deceptive and use force.
Better regulation (not necessarily more or less regulation) is required to avoid or at least reduce serfdom at the hands of the owner class in a capitalistic society. The alternatives are a command economy or serfdom. I for one do not like either of those alternatives. Regulated capitalism is the best and possibly only way to ensure a reasonably full measure of personal liberty.
Voting libertarian is not the answer. The libertarian party is only an experiment by the owning class to use the desire for freedom to disenfranchise the masses for personal gain. Government needs a certain amount of strength to protect people from economic predation and the return to a class based society where most people are virtual or actual slaves.
There are no parties that actually represent the people and seek to empower their freedom. We need a party that believes in personal liberty but also promotes policy to the benefit of the people instead of corporate entities that serve as the proxies of power for the elite ruling class. Democrats fail. Libertarians fail. Republicans OMG WTF fail. Greens fail just as hard as republicans, but in a different direction.
And you sir are a master debater.
The problem with your argument is that Polanski's crime isn't statutory rape. Its was forcible rape with assault (he beat her into submission) and sodomy that happened to be of a 13 year old girl.
"Use" of a "patent" involves creating something that implements the patent. The "use" we are talking about is the use of something that implements the patent (the app store and its upgrade API). If you implement a "fancy hammer" patent you need to license it when you make the fancy hammer. But the guy driving nails does not need a license.
The system that uses this patent is created and managed by apple. The app developers are merely using that system.
Education is a very important part of a sustainable civilization. Not countering your or his argument, but it needed to be pointed out.