I happen to know it was written by someone with a Masters who is working on his PhD.
Well, no, not really. I have no clue who wrote it. But I don't believe making cut-and-paste errors and failing to proof read your writing is limited to that part of the population that doesn't have (at least) a four year degree.
I usually proof read the things I write, and still I manage to send emails and post things that have glaring errors that I somehow overlooked. It's an unfortunate side effect of the email culture we have today.
Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say that it applies only to citizens, e.g. ... the People... ... no person... ... the accused...
It has always been my understanding that it applies to everyone that is here. If you come here from Canada and do something illegal, you still get a speedy trial (by jury) and a court appointed lawyer if you need one. If you're Swiss, the police don't get to search your house without a warrant. If you're Japanese, the government can't insist that you go to church on Sunday or swear an oath on a Bible. If you're Brazilian, the military can't quarter troops in your house.
And it also applies to how the U.S. government interacts with Americans traveling abroad. The CIA can't arrest me or search me without a warrant when I'm traveling outside the U.S. My constitutional rights don't magically stop at the border.
As such I don't subscribe to the notion that there's some magic No Man's Land at the border where our rights are suspended. But IANAL, and no doubt some nattering nabob of negativity will jump in with an acerbic reply telling me that I'm mistaken. So even though I don't often agree with Rand Paul, Blake Farenthold, and others of their ilk, I'm happy to see this sudden outbreak of common sense on their part and I support their attempt to instill some clarity into this area of the law.
If progtards had brains, they wouldn't equate racial and sexual quotas with equality.
Oh, we've gone from libtards to progtards. How droll. Shall I call you a conservitard in return? How about I just cut to the chase and call you a plain old retard? (Thanks to Twitler we're long past the need to be politically correct.)
I'm happy to have you call me a libtard or a progtard because I know it means instead of spouting whatever tripe President Brannon, Kellyann, and Vladimir tell you to think, I can think for myself. I know my side doesn't need to resort to nonsense like gerrymandering election districts, or passing laws to inhibit and intimidate voters, or any of the other dirty tricks your side uses to rig elections. When your side stops that shit I'll start taking you seriously again. You and your side's "win at any cost even though we're the minority" mentality proves to me that you're morally bankrupt. And the fact that you post as AC just further confirms to me how broken you really are.
Oh that patronizing response again. I don't remember your side "getting over it" when you were the losers. We got to look at your "Impeach Obama" bumper stickers and the rest of your crap for eight years.
Guess what. We're not going away. So you can just Shut The Fuck Up with your "get over it" crap. We're totally going to be in your fucking face for the next 45 months. Get used to it.
The R2000 notes will never come near replacing the old notes.
That's not what I see when I'm there. The new R2000 note is everywhere, in nearly the same quantities as the R1000 note.
So no, I would not ever call replacing the R1000 notes with new R2000 notes eliminating the high denomination notes. And I'm not sure what planet it would be on where it would be considered that. In five or six years inflation will make the R2000 note the same value as the R1000 note was today, and everyone that had a stack of R1000 notes today will have a stack of R2000 notes instead.
Here in the US we actually did eliminate the $500 note. As an aside, In the early days of ATMs here I routinely used to get $10 notes, then for the last 20 years exclusively $20 notes. More recently I've started to get $50s sometimes. Someday maybe we'll bring back the $500. But in the mean time, to make it hard for drug dealers, we eliminated the $500 note. We didn't start issuing $1000 notes on the (phony) premise that it would never come near to replacing the $500 notes; we knew the drug dealers would happily start using $1000 notes instead, if we had.
According the trickle down capitalism, if we let the millionaires save millions of dollars by hiring immigrants, those savings will trickle down to the unemployed americans! You know, the white middle class unemployed americans, not those other ones, the ones on welfare.
It isn't their savings that trickles down. According to Reagan's trickle down economic (not capitalism) theory, the wealthy were supposed to take the extra money garnered from the tax cuts they received and invest it, creating jobs by doing so.
The reality is that the rich just saved it – they put it in the bank. They never invested it. No jobs were ever created by tax cuts for the rich. Why? The rich like seeing their wealth grow, not shrink. They hardly ever want to spend it on risky ventures like starting a company and hiring employees.
Money saved by allowing companies to hire H1-B workers is merely to improve the bottom line and pay bigger dividends to share holders and give bigger salaries and bonuses to the CxOs. Nothing about H1-B was ever about trickle down.
I don't agree that one tax is as good as another. Taxing the robots will just be a disincentive for anyone to buy and use robots.
If using robots lowers the COGS, the taxes on profits is one incentive to pass the savings on to the consumer in the form of lower prices.
That's the theory. The owner could also just extract the profits as his rightful due. (And he or she is certainly entitled to do that.)
The beauty of competition and free markets is that if the owner fears losing business to his or her competitors who do pass the savings along then he will have an incentive to do that same.
Indeed, the (presumed increase) in profits was taxed. But the steam engine itself was not taxed. Nor the assembly line.
And maybe there was an increase in profits. Or possibly the increase in profits was offset by the expense of buying the steam engine or building the assembly line; with a net result of no increase in overall profitability.
Regardless, the point is, the steam engine itself was not taxed.
Did we tax steam engines when they made pumping water out of coal mines more efficient? Or driving mills instead of using water wheels? Or hauling goods and passengers long distances?
Did we tax Bethlehem Steel when they did time motion studies to figure out that laborers using smaller shovels can actually shovel more coal?
Did we tax assembly lines when they made producing cars and washing machines and radios more efficient?
Did we tax Intel's new 17nm fab, when – and just because – it made producing CPUs more efficient than their old 22nm fab?
If the prosecution, i.e. Queens Counsel, in a criminal trial wants his photographs to use as evidence against someone else, I would expect them to subpoena them.
They did. He illegally refused to comply. Making him a criminal.
I'm still not a lawyer, but AIUI the judge can find him in contempt of court. I don't know what the penalties are for Contempt of Court in Scotland. Over here you can be fined, and even jailed. A few days in the pokey usually puts people in the right frame of mind to comply with subpoenas and court orders.
What they don't do, AIUI, is have the police get a (search) warrant to search the home of an innocent third party. for "evidence".
Except this criminal is not innocent. He's broke the law.
Thank you Captain Obvious. Criminals are – generally – not innocent. At least of the crime(s) they were convicted for.
So he's been tried, has he? And convicted? AFAICT he might only be in contempt of court. And all in all, that's a rather key fact to have left out in the telling of this tale of miscarriage of justice.
And WRT "He's broke [sic] the law.", I dare say we've all broken the law at one point or another in our lives. Does that make us all criminals? And thus subject to random warrants to have jackbooted thugs confiscate our property?
If he has evidence, the normal thing to do is subpoena it. If he refuses to deliver it he can be found in contempt of court, and penalized appropriately by the court.
AIUI that's how it works (is supposed to work) here (USA), and how I suppose ti works in the UK too since our legal system is based on theirs.
What you don't get to do is get a so-called warrant, for jack booted thugs to confiscate personal property.
The fact that you seem to be okay with jack booted thugs is – cough – troubling to me, and I presume to many in the civilized world.
And yeah, maybe those things hitting your web site after your bot tweets are bots too.
Some account has bots listening, that get your bot's tweets, posted from an account that has no followers? I'm not sure I understand that. Do the posts have hashtags? Could they be searching for those?
If the prosecution, i.e. Queens Counsel, in a criminal trial wants his photographs to use as evidence against someone else, I would expect them to subpoena them.
What they don't do, AIUI, is have the police get a (search) warrant to search the home of an innocent third party. for "evidence".
Maybe standards have slipped in the UK, but I really can't imagine a judge in Scotland approving such a warrant. Some other places in the world I can see it happening, but I wouldn't have thought in Scotland.
But IANAL, not in Scotland, not anywhere. (Even though I play one on TV)
People who are employed, even in low skill jobs, need a living wage. Without it the rest of us end up subsiding their existence through things like Welfare, SNAP, higher health care costs, etc. E.g. Walmart employees who need food assistance because they don't earn enough working a full time job; while the owners of Walmart (and ASDA) are among the richest people in the world.That's you and me subsidizing their existence through our taxes while the Waltons just keep getting richer.
Pick how you want to pay for it. Higher prices – perhaps – for discretionary things like a burger at MacDonalds? Or through non-discretionary things like your taxes and your health care premiums? Personally, I think the people who are buying Burger King Whoppers should be paying for the people who make their burger. If I buy a burger at Wendy's, I kinda expect the price I pay to cover the cost of making it, and that should include paying the people who work there a living wage.
Helping the poor break the poverty cycle costs society less overall. Look it up, there are plenty of studies that show it to be true. Get past your prejudices about giving people stuff they didn't earn.If you claim to be a Christian, good Christians help those who have less than themselves. (Lots of good people who aren't Christians also help those who have less.)
Iin places like Australia they pay $14+ per hour to fast food workers, and somehow the price of a value meal is the same there as it is here.
It's kinda sad, IMO, that this has to explained. Even once.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for that. I hope you feel better for it. Esp. as an AC, you must feel especially proud.
I happen to know it was written by someone with a Masters who is working on his PhD.
Well, no, not really. I have no clue who wrote it. But I don't believe making cut-and-paste errors and failing to proof read your writing is limited to that part of the population that doesn't have (at least) a four year degree.
I usually proof read the things I write, and still I manage to send emails and post things that have glaring errors that I somehow overlooked. It's an unfortunate side effect of the email culture we have today.
It has always been my understanding that it applies to everyone that is here. If you come here from Canada and do something illegal, you still get a speedy trial (by jury) and a court appointed lawyer if you need one. If you're Swiss, the police don't get to search your house without a warrant. If you're Japanese, the government can't insist that you go to church on Sunday or swear an oath on a Bible. If you're Brazilian, the military can't quarter troops in your house.
And it also applies to how the U.S. government interacts with Americans traveling abroad. The CIA can't arrest me or search me without a warrant when I'm traveling outside the U.S. My constitutional rights don't magically stop at the border.
As such I don't subscribe to the notion that there's some magic No Man's Land at the border where our rights are suspended. But IANAL, and no doubt some nattering nabob of negativity will jump in with an acerbic reply telling me that I'm mistaken. So even though I don't often agree with Rand Paul, Blake Farenthold, and others of their ilk, I'm happy to see this sudden outbreak of common sense on their part and I support their attempt to instill some clarity into this area of the law.
I'm almost certainly going to be smuggling an illegal nanny or housekeeper in the trunk of my phone.
If progtards had brains, they wouldn't equate racial and sexual quotas with equality.
Oh, we've gone from libtards to progtards. How droll. Shall I call you a conservitard in return? How about I just cut to the chase and call you a plain old retard? (Thanks to Twitler we're long past the need to be politically correct.)
I'm happy to have you call me a libtard or a progtard because I know it means instead of spouting whatever tripe President Brannon, Kellyann, and Vladimir tell you to think, I can think for myself. I know my side doesn't need to resort to nonsense like gerrymandering election districts, or passing laws to inhibit and intimidate voters, or any of the other dirty tricks your side uses to rig elections. When your side stops that shit I'll start taking you seriously again. You and your side's "win at any cost even though we're the minority" mentality proves to me that you're morally bankrupt. And the fact that you post as AC just further confirms to me how broken you really are.
Oh that patronizing response again. I don't remember your side "getting over it" when you were the losers. We got to look at your "Impeach Obama" bumper stickers and the rest of your crap for eight years.
Guess what. We're not going away. So you can just Shut The Fuck Up with your "get over it" crap. We're totally going to be in your fucking face for the next 45 months. Get used to it.
Just because a company CAN sell something does not mean they will.
I think it will be pretty interesting to see what they can actually end up buying.
One thing that got lost in all the wailing and moaning is that protecting privacy is the purview of the FTC, not the FCC.
The law got axed because it was a standout overreach of a specific government agency, only affected a certain segment, and was done badly.
What *should* have happened is the FTC should pass a low [sic] saying that *every* corporation has to protect customer privacy.
Everyone got so distracted with "muh rites!" and completely lost track of whether it was a good law or not.
I've got news for you: the FTC doesn't pass laws.
Perhaps you were thinking of regulations?
The R2000 notes will never come near replacing the old notes.
That's not what I see when I'm there. The new R2000 note is everywhere, in nearly the same quantities as the R1000 note.
So no, I would not ever call replacing the R1000 notes with new R2000 notes eliminating the high denomination notes. And I'm not sure what planet it would be on where it would be considered that. In five or six years inflation will make the R2000 note the same value as the R1000 note was today, and everyone that had a stack of R1000 notes today will have a stack of R2000 notes instead.
Here in the US we actually did eliminate the $500 note. As an aside, In the early days of ATMs here I routinely used to get $10 notes, then for the last 20 years exclusively $20 notes. More recently I've started to get $50s sometimes. Someday maybe we'll bring back the $500. But in the mean time, to make it hard for drug dealers, we eliminated the $500 note. We didn't start issuing $1000 notes on the (phony) premise that it would never come near to replacing the $500 notes; we knew the drug dealers would happily start using $1000 notes instead, if we had.
And issued R2000 notes to replace them. Not exactly what I'd call eliminating.
No nitwit, I'm saying he has kept many of his promises.
According the trickle down capitalism, if we let the millionaires save millions of dollars by hiring immigrants, those savings will trickle down to the unemployed americans! You know, the white middle class unemployed americans, not those other ones, the ones on welfare.
It isn't their savings that trickles down. According to Reagan's trickle down economic (not capitalism) theory, the wealthy were supposed to take the extra money garnered from the tax cuts they received and invest it, creating jobs by doing so.
The reality is that the rich just saved it – they put it in the bank. They never invested it. No jobs were ever created by tax cuts for the rich. Why? The rich like seeing their wealth grow, not shrink. They hardly ever want to spend it on risky ventures like starting a company and hiring employees.
Money saved by allowing companies to hire H1-B workers is merely to improve the bottom line and pay bigger dividends to share holders and give bigger salaries and bonuses to the CxOs. Nothing about H1-B was ever about trickle down.
He's been more truthful than any other head of state I've seen in my lifetime. Sad, yes, but that is the state of politics.
I don't know about truthful, but that sounds eerily like this quote:
“I have more faith in Hitler than in anyone else. He alone has kept his promises, all his promises, to the Jewish people.”
––Elie Wiesel, Night
Quite a few of my acquaintances have switched to using Lyft because of Uber's toxicity. But all the Uber drivers around here are also Lyft drivers.
Not that Lyft is allegedly much better. Apparently they're all a bunch of assholes.
I've been told it's quite expensive, although it's not San Francisco and Silicon Valley expensive.
I don't agree that one tax is as good as another. Taxing the robots will just be a disincentive for anyone to buy and use robots.
If using robots lowers the COGS, the taxes on profits is one incentive to pass the savings on to the consumer in the form of lower prices.
That's the theory. The owner could also just extract the profits as his rightful due. (And he or she is certainly entitled to do that.)
The beauty of competition and free markets is that if the owner fears losing business to his or her competitors who do pass the savings along then he will have an incentive to do that same.
You answer "Yes?" with a question mark?
Indeed, the (presumed increase) in profits was taxed. But the steam engine itself was not taxed. Nor the assembly line.
And maybe there was an increase in profits. Or possibly the increase in profits was offset by the expense of buying the steam engine or building the assembly line; with a net result of no increase in overall profitability.
Regardless, the point is, the steam engine itself was not taxed.
Did we tax steam engines when they made pumping water out of coal mines more efficient? Or driving mills instead of using water wheels? Or hauling goods and passengers long distances?
Did we tax Bethlehem Steel when they did time motion studies to figure out that laborers using smaller shovels can actually shovel more coal?
Did we tax assembly lines when they made producing cars and washing machines and radios more efficient?
Did we tax Intel's new 17nm fab, when – and just because – it made producing CPUs more efficient than their old 22nm fab?
Etc. etc.
If the prosecution, i.e. Queens Counsel, in a criminal trial wants his photographs to use as evidence against someone else, I would expect them to subpoena them.
They did. He illegally refused to comply. Making him a criminal.
I'm still not a lawyer, but AIUI the judge can find him in contempt of court. I don't know what the penalties are for Contempt of Court in Scotland. Over here you can be fined, and even jailed. A few days in the pokey usually puts people in the right frame of mind to comply with subpoenas and court orders.
What they don't do, AIUI, is have the police get a (search) warrant to search the home of an innocent third party. for "evidence".
Except this criminal is not innocent. He's broke the law.
Thank you Captain Obvious. Criminals are – generally – not innocent. At least of the crime(s) they were convicted for.
So he's been tried, has he? And convicted? AFAICT he might only be in contempt of court. And all in all, that's a rather key fact to have left out in the telling of this tale of miscarriage of justice.
And WRT "He's broke [sic] the law.", I dare say we've all broken the law at one point or another in our lives. Does that make us all criminals? And thus subject to random warrants to have jackbooted thugs confiscate our property?
If he has evidence, the normal thing to do is subpoena it. If he refuses to deliver it he can be found in contempt of court, and penalized appropriately by the court.
AIUI that's how it works (is supposed to work) here (USA), and how I suppose ti works in the UK too since our legal system is based on theirs.
What you don't get to do is get a so-called warrant, for jack booted thugs to confiscate personal property.
The fact that you seem to be okay with jack booted thugs is – cough – troubling to me, and I presume to many in the civilized world.
Why don't you think your "system" isn't a bot?
And yeah, maybe those things hitting your web site after your bot tweets are bots too.
Some account has bots listening, that get your bot's tweets, posted from an account that has no followers? I'm not sure I understand that. Do the posts have hashtags? Could they be searching for those?
Some people are saying that @realDonaldTrump is definitely a bot. But I wouldn't want to tell you that, you'll have to make your own mind up about it.
That's an insult to bots.
If the prosecution, i.e. Queens Counsel, in a criminal trial wants his photographs to use as evidence against someone else, I would expect them to subpoena them.
What they don't do, AIUI, is have the police get a (search) warrant to search the home of an innocent third party. for "evidence".
Maybe standards have slipped in the UK, but I really can't imagine a judge in Scotland approving such a warrant. Some other places in the world I can see it happening, but I wouldn't have thought in Scotland.
But IANAL, not in Scotland, not anywhere. (Even though I play one on TV)
It's not an umlaut. There are no umlauts in English. Coöperate isn't a German word.
it's a diaeresis. It's tells the reader that you pronounce the second 'o'. It's not pronounced coop-er-ate, it's pronounced co-op-er-ate.
It's most commonly seen in scholarly papers, and in the New Yorker magazine, where it's the 'house style'.
That's either going to bring the price of STMs way down.
Or the price of memory is going to go through the roof.
People who are employed, even in low skill jobs, need a living wage. Without it the rest of us end up subsiding their existence through things like Welfare, SNAP, higher health care costs, etc. E.g. Walmart employees who need food assistance because they don't earn enough working a full time job; while the owners of Walmart (and ASDA) are among the richest people in the world .That's you and me subsidizing their existence through our taxes while the Waltons just keep getting richer.
Pick how you want to pay for it. Higher prices – perhaps – for discretionary things like a burger at MacDonalds? Or through non-discretionary things like your taxes and your health care premiums? Personally, I think the people who are buying Burger King Whoppers should be paying for the people who make their burger. If I buy a burger at Wendy's, I kinda expect the price I pay to cover the cost of making it, and that should include paying the people who work there a living wage.
Helping the poor break the poverty cycle costs society less overall. Look it up, there are plenty of studies that show it to be true. Get past your prejudices about giving people stuff they didn't earn.If you claim to be a Christian, good Christians help those who have less than themselves. (Lots of good people who aren't Christians also help those who have less.)
Iin places like Australia they pay $14+ per hour to fast food workers, and somehow the price of a value meal is the same there as it is here.
It's kinda sad, IMO, that this has to explained. Even once.