The satellites for those services are in geostationary orbit, pointed so that they have a footprint in the U.S., so they wouldn't work in Iran (Looking around for a second, it sounds like they specifically use a satellite called Anik-F2).
The tiny little dish has to be pointed pretty carefully to make the uplink work.
I think maybe he was using a different definition of have than you. $60 a month with a 2 year minimum contract is quite a bit of money for some people (along with an upfront fee or increased monthly price).
In my state (Michigan), if you earn $99,999, you can pay $44 to cover your use tax on all purchases less than $1,000, and then pay 6% on each purchase over $1,000.
It's pretty inane, but so is worrying about it.
It sounds like you might like some parts of Washtenaw county though.
Since I'm not doing anything wrong, there isn't any reason for you to be checking, and when it comes to government, not doing things that have no reason is generally a better option than doing things that have no reason.
Most people are quite interested in keeping their careers. Hell, most people are honest (at least most of the time).
I agree that the sentence seems weak (I haven't studied the situation enough to have a strong opinion), but it was plenty sufficient to serve as a deterrent to others.
Well, pushing back on my own comment a little bit, the red tape does make it more difficult to maintain a pattern of such behavior.
And reading your link, the officers ended up less dead than the victim, but they were punished, and it isn't real likely they will ever be public officials in the future.
I'm pretty sure 2 honest people can have disputes and disagreements. The pattern of resolving those would be the essence of government. Add in more people and it will get more complicated. Add in cheaters and away you go.
Plenty of people blog with high ethical standards. Certainly higher than every disgraced journalist we have seen over history (and it isn't like they are always at tabloids).
I don't know, I think asking the questions the way he does gives the answerer a chance to connect the dots. If someone were obtuse enough not to be able to connect said dots, they aren't going to be very useful (you asked obtuse fake questions, rather than for clarification, asking for clarification would be fairly appropriate).
Aside: in strongly typed languages, I made a bug in one of my phrases, the + operator isn't very likely to coerce the integer to a string.
Maybe never. Over the last 60 years, the U.S. economy has grown so fast that U.S. assets have been desirable enough to maintain significant trade deficits in real goods (because the dollars come back as investments).
My point was that, to the extent markets are efficient (they are not anywhere near 100%, but they do okay), a country can only maintain a sustainable trade deficit (because no one will finance an unsustainable deficit).
The biggest thing to worry about is a negative bubble in the market for dollars (i.e., sentiment drives the market value of dollars well below their true value), as that would cause a severe economic shock.
A smooth unwinding of the deficit might only result in slightly lower standards of living (but the amount might be small enough to be completely offset by things that increase the standard of living).
Trade equalization will be a natural consequence of the ongoing erosion of the dollar (it is notable that trade imbalances can tend to contribute to said erosion -- for instance, if (as?) China decides they have enough dollars, they will stop buying dollars (or even start selling them), something that will show up in the exchange rate (if they make a big enough move), which would affect the balance of trade).
His point was more that DVDs don't have shit to do with free markets.
It is likely, in a free market, that a movie company would simply produce fewer copies and sell them in rich countries first, eventually moving the price down in those countries and spreading to less wealthy countries as they went. All without any governmental market manipulation.
If piracy was a problem, people wouldn't finance movies anymore.
It can be somewhat difficult to decide how the job market is doing. Sure, at the moment, unemployment in the United States is at or near an all time high, with about 14.5 million people unemployed, and about 140 million people employed (Table A, May):
In 1983 (the bottom of a recession, sorry no direct link, make a query here: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm ), there were about 10-12.5 million unemployed people, out of a workforce of about 100 million people.
In 1958 (the year in that decade with the highest number of unemployed people, same link for the query), the numbers are about 4.5 million unemployed and about 63 million people working.
So the pessimist, depending on the time period, has to think that the 40 or 80 million jobs that were created do little to actually contribute to the economy. And they are probably wrong.
The U.S. and China are pretty much in the U.S. financing thing together. If the U.S. defaults, we are both screwed.
China is developing their internal economy and would be able to continue to chug along, but they need economic growth to keep people happy so losing the U.S. as a customer would be tough. The U.S. would be in deep shit if we could not finance our debt (and we are deep enough now that hedges against the dollar are worth serious consideration).
Slashdot Mirror
If he stops buying power and starts selling it, he makes less and less money on each unit.
Exactly. That's often what it takes to attract every-man.
The satellites for those services are in geostationary orbit, pointed so that they have a footprint in the U.S., so they wouldn't work in Iran (Looking around for a second, it sounds like they specifically use a satellite called Anik-F2).
The tiny little dish has to be pointed pretty carefully to make the uplink work.
I think maybe he was using a different definition of have than you. $60 a month with a 2 year minimum contract is quite a bit of money for some people (along with an upfront fee or increased monthly price).
In my state (Michigan), if you earn $99,999, you can pay $44 to cover your use tax on all purchases less than $1,000, and then pay 6% on each purchase over $1,000.
It's pretty inane, but so is worrying about it.
It sounds like you might like some parts of Washtenaw county though.
Does it really need to be said?
Since I'm not doing anything wrong, there isn't any reason for you to be checking, and when it comes to government, not doing things that have no reason is generally a better option than doing things that have no reason.
Metal roofing is an excellent option, it is quite durable. People usually go with something cheaper.
It's copypasta and they don't care what you think. Replying just confirms to them that you read it, or at least noticed it.
Most people are quite interested in keeping their careers. Hell, most people are honest (at least most of the time).
I agree that the sentence seems weak (I haven't studied the situation enough to have a strong opinion), but it was plenty sufficient to serve as a deterrent to others.
Yes, the sentencing was weak. But the fact that they were removed says the system is not completely dysfunctional.
It depends on the bicycle and Toyota that are involved, but I think you could rely on it being at least 25-30 smugs worth.
Well, pushing back on my own comment a little bit, the red tape does make it more difficult to maintain a pattern of such behavior.
And reading your link, the officers ended up less dead than the victim, but they were punished, and it isn't real likely they will ever be public officials in the future.
In lots of jurisdictions, a cop could just smash through your door and chalk it up to a mistake, with few consequences.
Sure, they wouldn't be able to prosecute you, but that wouldn't make the events a whole lot more convenient to you.
I'm pretty sure 2 honest people can have disputes and disagreements. The pattern of resolving those would be the essence of government. Add in more people and it will get more complicated. Add in cheaters and away you go.
Given that I was intentionally calling myself a pretentious windbag, one sort of hopes that you would notice it.
Plenty of people blog with high ethical standards. Certainly higher than every disgraced journalist we have seen over history (and it isn't like they are always at tabloids).
I don't know, I think asking the questions the way he does gives the answerer a chance to connect the dots. If someone were obtuse enough not to be able to connect said dots, they aren't going to be very useful (you asked obtuse fake questions, rather than for clarification, asking for clarification would be fairly appropriate).
Aside: in strongly typed languages, I made a bug in one of my phrases, the + operator isn't very likely to coerce the integer to a string.
Or not, they didn't actually get hurt and they got the phone back.
I doubt they even reached 500 car-miles of risk.
Bland.
More cynically, we want Iranian oil, making sanctions less attractive.
Maybe never. Over the last 60 years, the U.S. economy has grown so fast that U.S. assets have been desirable enough to maintain significant trade deficits in real goods (because the dollars come back as investments).
My point was that, to the extent markets are efficient (they are not anywhere near 100%, but they do okay), a country can only maintain a sustainable trade deficit (because no one will finance an unsustainable deficit).
The biggest thing to worry about is a negative bubble in the market for dollars (i.e., sentiment drives the market value of dollars well below their true value), as that would cause a severe economic shock.
A smooth unwinding of the deficit might only result in slightly lower standards of living (but the amount might be small enough to be completely offset by things that increase the standard of living).
Trade equalization will be a natural consequence of the ongoing erosion of the dollar (it is notable that trade imbalances can tend to contribute to said erosion -- for instance, if (as?) China decides they have enough dollars, they will stop buying dollars (or even start selling them), something that will show up in the exchange rate (if they make a big enough move), which would affect the balance of trade).
His point was more that DVDs don't have shit to do with free markets.
It is likely, in a free market, that a movie company would simply produce fewer copies and sell them in rich countries first, eventually moving the price down in those countries and spreading to less wealthy countries as they went. All without any governmental market manipulation.
If piracy was a problem, people wouldn't finance movies anymore.
It can be somewhat difficult to decide how the job market is doing. Sure, at the moment, unemployment in the United States is at or near an all time high, with about 14.5 million people unemployed, and about 140 million people employed (Table A, May):
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
In 1983 (the bottom of a recession, sorry no direct link, make a query here: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm ), there were about 10-12.5 million unemployed people, out of a workforce of about 100 million people.
In 1958 (the year in that decade with the highest number of unemployed people, same link for the query), the numbers are about 4.5 million unemployed and about 63 million people working.
So the pessimist, depending on the time period, has to think that the 40 or 80 million jobs that were created do little to actually contribute to the economy. And they are probably wrong.
The U.S. and China are pretty much in the U.S. financing thing together. If the U.S. defaults, we are both screwed.
China is developing their internal economy and would be able to continue to chug along, but they need economic growth to keep people happy so losing the U.S. as a customer would be tough. The U.S. would be in deep shit if we could not finance our debt (and we are deep enough now that hedges against the dollar are worth serious consideration).