what would happen if the gubermint just released a list of people who they thought were likely to take a plane out of the air? no enforcement. The liability on the airline's part is not worth the airfare.
I think the solution is a bit more elegant than that, no victim, no assailant, no crime. makes their job a lot easier when they can just eat everybody involved:)
wouldn't that be discrimination of some kind? blocking the incorporation and business activities of one corporate entity because of the actions of an entirely separate corporate entity?
in that case, yay. but that's not actually what you said. you actually leave the point you're trying to make rather ambiguous.
next time, if it's negligible, say something like what you just said to me. that they did experiments and found that the stabilizing effect of increasing wheel radius is negligible in maintaining balance.
what you actually said was basically. "no, you're wrong, linky linky"
i'd say i'm not entirely sure what you're trying to link to. I'd also say that big wheels have a bigger moment arm or whatever than small wheels and wheels contain angular momentum when up to speed. All wheels in motion make use of that gyroscopic effect, so if it starts upright it's going to want to stay upright. what you're suggesting is that gyroscopes with more momentum aren't better resisting changing orientation than gyroscopes with less momentum.
now, is your argument that it contributes nothing, or that it contributes a negligible amount? to stability?
rolling wheels stay upright a lot longer than ones that don't roll.
state governments are because we're not all one people or one regions. for example, contiguous US vs alaska and hawaii. smaller entities can be more nimble and responsive than larger entities.
it's 2 billion less taxes, or roughly 1.3 billion. if the actual value of the team is 2 billion market. then a private conversation cost him 600+million... that's what's inadequate.
um, it wasn't yet. but the vote would have taken control of his property from him. forced sale. Maybe i used the wrong word, i don't know, but what i meant to reference was the forced sale of property.
i for one, would like to live in a country of laws... not public opinion. he settled matters in court without admitting guilt. just because everybody knows something, doesn't mean it's the truth nor does it mean we should act on it. laws are there to protect the minority from the majority, aka tyranny of the masses.
i'm a liberal and i don't like it. Nobody should be coerced into selling their property, even if it's at a profit.
and you may be comfortable living in a society where you have to watch what you say in all settings at all times everywhere for fear of muttering an unwelcome thought. But i'm very much against the idea of resurrecting the USSR or the hitler youth. everybody has a camera, everybody has a recorder and you never know who's listening.
think of this slight change to the scenario. someone with a grudge against sterling recorded his racist rant between he and his mistress. sent it to a tabloid anonymously in the hopes of hurting him as much as possible. would it still be ok? this reaction that we're having? an unambiguously illegal recording. What if it were a NSA wiretap, and one of the government operatives sold it to the tabloids for money? Private citizens doing what private citizens do.
The malicious party will almost always never be found, and the sad part is that nobody seems to want them found.
at no point in my life, have i wanted more government than i do now. Anything to put between me and the mob. I understand now why the founding fathers were weary of monarchy and democracy both. The mob is unfeeling, uncaring, unflinching, reactionary and fickle. God save us from ourselves.
from what i understand, it's the dying part. one of the big things before the sale was announced was that if he owned the team at the time of his death his inheritors would inherit the team and instead of having to pay taxes on the gains from 12 million to 1 billion and then pay estate taxes, the value of the team at the time of inheritance would be reassessed to 1 billion. If they sold at that value, they would only be paying estate taxes, not taxes on the profit of the growth of the team from 12mill to 1 bill in market value.
similarly now, it seems if he can make the case that this is a forced sale, then he gets two full years to convert any revenue from the sale into "similar" investments. this could be anything from european sports teams, entertainment businesses... etc, depends on how wide you want to take similar. The article also says that the original 12 mill would then be used as the basis for the official book value of any assets acquired in this way.
if sterling sold them prior to his death, then he would then need to pay taxes on any difference between the basis value (fraction of the "12 million" that the asset originally cost to buy) and the sale price. If again, he dies without selling any of the assets from the "12 million," all his assets gets reassessed to market, and effectively his heirs get 1 billion - 12 million in untaxed income... before estate tax of course.
the ethical clause cites "willingly" and the way it's worded strongly implies that the meaning was that you could only be punished for voluntarily bringing outrage onto the league. now, that might not be how the lawyers eventually would have wrangled out of the ambiguity in that clause, but that's what a plain reading of the text seems to mean. contracts are contracts, and he didn't voluntarily expose himself to scrutiny by saying things in private.
also, your parent understood that it was not a first amendment case. he was suggesting that those same protections from should be extended to cover corporations too.
i'm for bigger government. we've tried the smaller government thing, it's where we started. Then we moved beyond child labor, sweat-shops, company towns and robber-barons. Unfettered capitalism was the time of carnegie... it was not a good look on us.
he has conditional ownership of the clippers, in every sense of the word, all profits they make are at his discretion. movement is largely up to him, contract negotions for ads... etc. He must give up control of his franchise to the NBA commissioner if he is voted out... for an infraction as listed by the NBA constitution. The constitution is a contract between each individual owners and the other owners.
I'm fairly sure that the NBA has argued in the past that it was just a loose collection of individual owners... to dodge some other legal challenge. but yeah, the NBA doesn't own the clippers until such a time that sterling was found to have violated his agreement with the other owners and was voted to be stripped of control. at which point he still retains ownership, just not control.
Slashdot Mirror
what would happen if the gubermint just released a list of people who they thought were likely to take a plane out of the air? no enforcement. The liability on the airline's part is not worth the airfare.
terrible joke, and you're a terrible person for saying it. Die in a fire.
we'll win this arms race, because we're getting smarter and their just staying the same.
it didn't take us very long to find something to kill them in the first place... once we knew they were there, 200 odd years.
and in the last hundred look how fucking far we've come.
I think the solution is a bit more elegant than that, no victim, no assailant, no crime. makes their job a lot easier when they can just eat everybody involved :)
wouldn't that be discrimination of some kind? blocking the incorporation and business activities of one corporate entity because of the actions of an entirely separate corporate entity?
in that case, yay. but that's not actually what you said. you actually leave the point you're trying to make rather ambiguous.
next time, if it's negligible, say something like what you just said to me. that they did experiments and found that the stabilizing effect of increasing wheel radius is negligible in maintaining balance.
what you actually said was basically. "no, you're wrong, linky linky"
a little explanation goes a long way.
i'd say i'm not entirely sure what you're trying to link to. I'd also say that big wheels have a bigger moment arm or whatever than small wheels and wheels contain angular momentum when up to speed. All wheels in motion make use of that gyroscopic effect, so if it starts upright it's going to want to stay upright. what you're suggesting is that gyroscopes with more momentum aren't better resisting changing orientation than gyroscopes with less momentum.
now, is your argument that it contributes nothing, or that it contributes a negligible amount? to stability?
rolling wheels stay upright a lot longer than ones that don't roll.
reading comprehension fail, 270lbs. 100 kg + 50lbs of gear.
learn to do math, or did they not educate you in the numbers?
well, not any more, since i shot them all in the eyes.
state governments are because we're not all one people or one regions. for example, contiguous US vs alaska and hawaii. smaller entities can be more nimble and responsive than larger entities.
it's probably just being stupid again, but i for one am not going to complain about slashdot throwing up a political story that amuses me.
at least i like this total fail of story selection :)
you're literally advocating dragging our entire system of government to a grinding halt.... forever... well played anarchist, well played.
but... i can honestly say. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. :)
i'm afraid dave.
all superficial
i'll be impressed when an AI can respond with or to an analogy. Demonstrate a true grasp of underlying concepts in a discussion.
it's 2 billion less taxes, or roughly 1.3 billion. if the actual value of the team is 2 billion market. then a private conversation cost him 600+million... that's what's inadequate.
we're all pretty much living comfortable, free and relatively affluent lives because of the consideration and self-sacrifice of others.
nobody alive today fought for the most important of the rights we hold sacred... well maybe the greatest generation, but that was more abstractly.
"i only regret, that i have only one life to lose for my country." -Hale
ayn rand was a fool and a hypocrite.
um, it wasn't yet. but the vote would have taken control of his property from him. forced sale. Maybe i used the wrong word, i don't know, but what i meant to reference was the forced sale of property.
i for one, would like to live in a country of laws... not public opinion. he settled matters in court without admitting guilt. just because everybody knows something, doesn't mean it's the truth nor does it mean we should act on it. laws are there to protect the minority from the majority, aka tyranny of the masses.
i'm a liberal and i don't like it. Nobody should be coerced into selling their property, even if it's at a profit.
and you may be comfortable living in a society where you have to watch what you say in all settings at all times everywhere for fear of muttering an unwelcome thought. But i'm very much against the idea of resurrecting the USSR or the hitler youth. everybody has a camera, everybody has a recorder and you never know who's listening.
think of this slight change to the scenario. someone with a grudge against sterling recorded his racist rant between he and his mistress. sent it to a tabloid anonymously in the hopes of hurting him as much as possible. would it still be ok? this reaction that we're having? an unambiguously illegal recording. What if it were a NSA wiretap, and one of the government operatives sold it to the tabloids for money? Private citizens doing what private citizens do.
The malicious party will almost always never be found, and the sad part is that nobody seems to want them found.
at no point in my life, have i wanted more government than i do now. Anything to put between me and the mob. I understand now why the founding fathers were weary of monarchy and democracy both. The mob is unfeeling, uncaring, unflinching, reactionary and fickle. God save us from ourselves.
from what i understand, it's the dying part. one of the big things before the sale was announced was that if he owned the team at the time of his death his inheritors would inherit the team and instead of having to pay taxes on the gains from 12 million to 1 billion and then pay estate taxes, the value of the team at the time of inheritance would be reassessed to 1 billion. If they sold at that value, they would only be paying estate taxes, not taxes on the profit of the growth of the team from 12mill to 1 bill in market value.
similarly now, it seems if he can make the case that this is a forced sale, then he gets two full years to convert any revenue from the sale into "similar" investments. this could be anything from european sports teams, entertainment businesses... etc, depends on how wide you want to take similar. The article also says that the original 12 mill would then be used as the basis for the official book value of any assets acquired in this way.
if sterling sold them prior to his death, then he would then need to pay taxes on any difference between the basis value (fraction of the "12 million" that the asset originally cost to buy) and the sale price. If again, he dies without selling any of the assets from the "12 million," all his assets gets reassessed to market, and effectively his heirs get 1 billion - 12 million in untaxed income... before estate tax of course.
the ethical clause cites "willingly" and the way it's worded strongly implies that the meaning was that you could only be punished for voluntarily bringing outrage onto the league. now, that might not be how the lawyers eventually would have wrangled out of the ambiguity in that clause, but that's what a plain reading of the text seems to mean. contracts are contracts, and he didn't voluntarily expose himself to scrutiny by saying things in private.
also, your parent understood that it was not a first amendment case. he was suggesting that those same protections from should be extended to cover corporations too.
i'm for bigger government. we've tried the smaller government thing, it's where we started. Then we moved beyond child labor, sweat-shops, company towns and robber-barons. Unfettered capitalism was the time of carnegie... it was not a good look on us.
slashdot is pretty interested in privacy though, and the sterling case had pretty big implications for privacy and our new networked world.
he has conditional ownership of the clippers, in every sense of the word, all profits they make are at his discretion. movement is largely up to him, contract negotions for ads... etc. He must give up control of his franchise to the NBA commissioner if he is voted out... for an infraction as listed by the NBA constitution. The constitution is a contract between each individual owners and the other owners.
I'm fairly sure that the NBA has argued in the past that it was just a loose collection of individual owners... to dodge some other legal challenge. but yeah, the NBA doesn't own the clippers until such a time that sterling was found to have violated his agreement with the other owners and was voted to be stripped of control. at which point he still retains ownership, just not control.