Whether I create a corporation with other people or not is none of your business
As stated before, a corporation is a legal fiction. It's not just an assembly of people. You don't seem to get that.
Your vision of government as some detached entity that has nothing to do with the people is fundamentally flawed. Government is reflection and function of society, which is created by people.
Also, you clearly have no concept of the actual meaning of libertarian
Based on how often I see this statement, it appears that a large percentage of self-proclaimed Libertarians have no concept of the meaning of Libertarian either.
A company is created by founders and shareholders. Unless you own a share in it, it's none of your business what it does.
In your libertarian/corporatist fantasy maybe, but in reality, it very much is my business, your business and everyone else's. As the parent correctly stated, corporations only exist because the government allows them to exist.
Our country was founded on a deep distrust for corporations and on the principal that corporations should only be allowed to exist if they serve the common good. To a degree that principal still exists, but due to the corrupting influence of money, we have fall farther and farther away from that principal over the last 150 years.
T-Mobile is fine in urban areas, but in rural areas like mine it's garbage. I was a T-mobile subscriber for ten years. I then switched to Sprint because they had "3G" service, but the towers in my area ended up being 3G radios fed by what must have been 56k ISDN lines. I also noticed that my phone would frequently roam on Verizon towers.
T-Mobile has 4G around here now, but it's still confined to inside towns. Venture out into the 30 mile patches of nowhere in between towns and you're back to 20th century "EDGE" speeds.
I finally got tired of putting up with shitty service, all to save $20 a month. I get 50 Mb/s in the middle of nowhere with Verizon. With T-Mobile I couldn't even make a call for short stretches on my commute home.
It is pretty trivial to escalate from standard user to sensitive administrator accounts as long as the intrusion is not detected immediately.
Please elaborate. We're talking about Windows right?
You need admin rights to monitor keystrokes in Windows and you can't set programs to automatically run for other users without admin rights.
In 16 years in IT, I've seen a piece of malware successfully escalate privileges once an this was a long time ago when privilege escalation exploits in Windows were much more common.
I'm not saying it's not possible, but I think we have different definitions of "trivial."
Taxation is, by definition, a wealth redistribution scheme.
How best to set up that scheme is the debate to have.
And, yes, given that our tax system is heavily influenced by corporations, perhaps me saying there was no corporate agenda behind it is not accurate. It's certainly not Uber's specific corporate agenda.
I actually had a lower estimate on what could be made doing this, and would have bet that many drivers don't earn enough to cover the wear and tear on their vehicles. Clearly this isn't the case.
Don't be so quick to sell yourself short. Your lower estimate may be correct.
The IRS rate for vehicle depreciation is around $0.50 per mile. Uber is calculating $0.06 a mile in value depreciation and 0.07 per mile in fuel costs and adding in $3000.00 a year in "other" costs. In my opinion, that kind of calculation is clearly designed to muddy the waters in regards to what the actual costs of their drivers are over the long term. If they just used the $0.50 number, which for the entire fleet, is probably closer to the truth, the numbers would look much worse for Uber drivers.
That IRS rate may not be perfect, but there is no corporate agenda driving it's calculation.
The trucks are okay. My 1994 Ranger lasted 20 years. Nothing major ever went wrong with it and it ran perfectly when I sold it in 2014. My coworker has a 97 Ranger with 375,000 miles on it. He's only had to replace the transmission ($750).
My 2004 Sonata was rock solid though. I still see it driving around town. I ended up buying a Volt to replace it. It's an awesome car so far, but it is a GM, so...pray for me.
Their news (not opinion shows) is actually the most "balanced" of any of the cable news networks.
Based on what metric? Got a link to some kind of analysis with some data?
. Their bias is calculated solely to maximize revenue, and since there's no major channel to the right of them, they make the most money by keeping their news somewhat close to center.
Close to the center for the demographic that watches them. The average age for all cable news channel viewers is 65-70, with Fox viewers being the oldest. This demographic in no way reflects the views of the American public at large.
But isn't this the same argument people make against illegal immigration?
It is the same argument and there is nothing inherently wrong with it. On both ends, employers intentionally use immigrants status as leverage to drive wages down.
An American citizen with more options would demand at least $20 an hour to pick grapes in the 105 degree heat in August.
You will find that similarly tough jobs (oil field service comes to mind) that are worked exclusively by citizens pay significantly more than Ag jobs do.
and how do you blame someone for making a better life for themselves or their kids? thats low
It's not the fault of the individual parents who make rational choices. It's the fault of our elected leaders for setting up an environment where such choices become rational.
Yeah, they took it from all 1,000 inhabitants of California.
The best estimates are actually 300,000. Spanish colonialists (Mexicans) commited the original genocide and the current families which hold the land now took it from them.
Besides, that's a stupid argument anyway
It was not really an argument. It was a statement of facts. Interesting that it offended you though. Did you or do you stand to inherit a lot of wealth, or are you just a rank-and-file bootlicker?
Not family farms in the sense that most people imagine.
The model the PP is talking about (and I was alluding to) is large business buying up the land and leasing it to people who do the actual farming and taking most of the profits.
The wealthiest "farmers" in Central California operate from the urban areas in Northern and Southern California.
The only wealthy farmers that actually live in Central CA (my neck of the woods) are those who inherited large chunks of land from their father, who inherited it from their father, who inherited it from their father, who forcefully took it from the original owners/inhabitants (Mexicans/Indigenous Peoples).
Slashdot Mirror
What we got from Obama and Pelosi has only caused costs to go up and increased the burden on employers, individuals and tax payers.
Annnnnd, back in reality world, costs have *NOT* gone up and the percentage of people insured is at an all-time high.
Whether I create a corporation with other people or not is none of your business
As stated before, a corporation is a legal fiction. It's not just an assembly of people. You don't seem to get that.
Your vision of government as some detached entity that has nothing to do with the people is fundamentally flawed. Government is reflection and function of society, which is created by people.
By your logic, our founding fathers were all progressive/fascist.
Those two economic concepts are ideologically opposed to each other.
When the majority of self-proclaimed libertarians stop supporting pro-corporatist policies, I'll stop laughing at that notion.
Also, you clearly have no concept of the actual meaning of libertarian
Based on how often I see this statement, it appears that a large percentage of self-proclaimed Libertarians have no concept of the meaning of Libertarian either.
A company is created by founders and shareholders. Unless you own a share in it, it's none of your business what it does.
In your libertarian/corporatist fantasy maybe, but in reality, it very much is my business, your business and everyone else's. As the parent correctly stated, corporations only exist because the government allows them to exist.
Our country was founded on a deep distrust for corporations and on the principal that corporations should only be allowed to exist if they serve the common good. To a degree that principal still exists, but due to the corrupting influence of money, we have fall farther and farther away from that principal over the last 150 years.
T-Mobile is fine in urban areas, but in rural areas like mine it's garbage. I was a T-mobile subscriber for ten years. I then switched to Sprint because they had "3G" service, but the towers in my area ended up being 3G radios fed by what must have been 56k ISDN lines. I also noticed that my phone would frequently roam on Verizon towers.
T-Mobile has 4G around here now, but it's still confined to inside towns. Venture out into the 30 mile patches of nowhere in between towns and you're back to 20th century "EDGE" speeds.
I finally got tired of putting up with shitty service, all to save $20 a month. I get 50 Mb/s in the middle of nowhere with Verizon. With T-Mobile I couldn't even make a call for short stretches on my commute home.
It is pretty trivial to escalate from standard user to sensitive administrator accounts as long as the intrusion is not detected immediately.
Please elaborate. We're talking about Windows right?
You need admin rights to monitor keystrokes in Windows and you can't set programs to automatically run for other users without admin rights.
In 16 years in IT, I've seen a piece of malware successfully escalate privileges once an this was a long time ago when privilege escalation exploits in Windows were much more common.
I'm not saying it's not possible, but I think we have different definitions of "trivial."
Taxation is, by definition, a wealth redistribution scheme.
How best to set up that scheme is the debate to have.
And, yes, given that our tax system is heavily influenced by corporations, perhaps me saying there was no corporate agenda behind it is not accurate. It's certainly not Uber's specific corporate agenda.
I actually had a lower estimate on what could be made doing this, and would have bet that many drivers don't earn enough to cover the wear and tear on their vehicles. Clearly this isn't the case.
Don't be so quick to sell yourself short. Your lower estimate may be correct.
The IRS rate for vehicle depreciation is around $0.50 per mile. Uber is calculating $0.06 a mile in value depreciation and 0.07 per mile in fuel costs and adding in $3000.00 a year in "other" costs. In my opinion, that kind of calculation is clearly designed to muddy the waters in regards to what the actual costs of their drivers are over the long term. If they just used the $0.50 number, which for the entire fleet, is probably closer to the truth, the numbers would look much worse for Uber drivers.
That IRS rate may not be perfect, but there is no corporate agenda driving it's calculation.
The trucks are okay. My 1994 Ranger lasted 20 years. Nothing major ever went wrong with it and it ran perfectly when I sold it in 2014. My coworker has a 97 Ranger with 375,000 miles on it. He's only had to replace the transmission ($750).
My 2004 Sonata was rock solid though. I still see it driving around town. I ended up buying a Volt to replace it. It's an awesome car so far, but it is a GM, so...pray for me.
The Washington Times is also a right-wing rag, founded and subsidized by cult leader.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/T...
He runs a charity that funds research and treatment for OCD.
for those cases, there's static routing.
Forcing old people to take the bus? I like it.
Their news (not opinion shows) is actually the most "balanced" of any of the cable news networks.
Based on what metric? Got a link to some kind of analysis with some data?
. Their bias is calculated solely to maximize revenue, and since there's no major channel to the right of them, they make the most money by keeping their news somewhat close to center.
Close to the center for the demographic that watches them. The average age for all cable news channel viewers is 65-70, with Fox viewers being the oldest. This demographic in no way reflects the views of the American public at large.
I tried to find the media number too awhile back Couldn't find it. As with income statistics, it's most certainly lower than the average.
EVSEs that can automatically ramp up and down using data directly from the utilities will be the norm in the near future.
But isn't this the same argument people make against illegal immigration?
It is the same argument and there is nothing inherently wrong with it. On both ends, employers intentionally use immigrants status as leverage to drive wages down.
An American citizen with more options would demand at least $20 an hour to pick grapes in the 105 degree heat in August.
You will find that similarly tough jobs (oil field service comes to mind) that are worked exclusively by citizens pay significantly more than Ag jobs do.
Your (theoretical) child will have sex before you're ready for them to.
Not his precious snowflake.
In the case of pertussis ("whooping cough"), infants cannot be vaccinated until they are four months old and the disease is most dangerous to infants.
We had an outbreak in my home town of pertussis at a private Christian school. Thankfully no infants died in that case.
and how do you blame someone for making a better life for themselves or their kids? thats low
It's not the fault of the individual parents who make rational choices. It's the fault of our elected leaders for setting up an environment where such choices become rational.
Well then. That settles it. Your anecdote from some random webpage swayed me. All teachers must not give a shit about the children they teach.
Yeah, they took it from all 1,000 inhabitants of California.
The best estimates are actually 300,000. Spanish colonialists (Mexicans) commited the original genocide and the current families which hold the land now took it from them.
Besides, that's a stupid argument anyway
It was not really an argument. It was a statement of facts. Interesting that it offended you though. Did you or do you stand to inherit a lot of wealth, or are you just a rank-and-file bootlicker?
I was making a commentary on income distribution in agricultural economies - not production farming practices.
I like cheap food.
Not family farms in the sense that most people imagine.
The model the PP is talking about (and I was alluding to) is large business buying up the land and leasing it to people who do the actual farming and taking most of the profits.
The wealthiest "farmers" in Central California operate from the urban areas in Northern and Southern California.
The only wealthy farmers that actually live in Central CA (my neck of the woods) are those who inherited large chunks of land from their father, who inherited it from their father, who inherited it from their father, who forcefully took it from the original owners/inhabitants (Mexicans/Indigenous Peoples).
I guess you could call them "family farmers."