I think a "sales tax" that only applied on the sale of out of state goods would be effectively a tariff and violate the ICC (unless *maybe* the item was alcohol). The SCOTUS ruling doesn't allow that that and the sites you linked to claiming otherwise are run and frequented by . ..common clay of the new west.
The county should take it via eminent domain and pay Apple the claimed value. The public good underlying the taking would be discouraging this sort of BS.
My exposure to board-level people is that the positions are sinecures meant to demonstrate the bonafides of the company and provide inside access to the resources that board member is associated: eg. inventment banker, or someone from a VC firm, or the President's son. In other words the notion of "most qualified" is laughable.
California is attempting to address the chicken-and-egg problem of increasing the number of women in a position to be influential enough to ask to join the board in the first place.
This bill is a pretty blunt-force approach, but corporations are creatures of the state and this isn't an instance where a quota would have an impact on anything that could pretend to be a meritocracy.
My initial thought was that this is ridiculous overreach. But the government regularly says where restaurants can and can't be. Framed as : You can't open a restaurant in your house, or your barber shop (I bet), or your office building—it is less unreasonable.
On the plus side, cities are supposed to be the most accountable governmental unit, and the easiest to leave.
Also, some drastic municipal ordinances (no smoking in restaurants, no plastic bags, no large sodas) come to be seen as common sense.
I don't remember the particulars of the law, but I can see a case for making the local, rather than global population determinative. For example, if Grey Wolves are occupying keystone spot and killing all of them will give you a rampant deer population, and that will eat all of the rare lilies that some butterfly needs to reproduce . . . and so on.
But instead we get lobbyists writing: "Dear Mr. President, there are too many species nowadays. Please allow us to eliminate some via stack ranking to eliminate the least economically valuable."
If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.
As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.
IOW: Call your (R) representative to hear why the free market, Constitution, and Jesus demand everything Comcast lobbyists want.
And the next time someone says there is no difference between the two parties, ask about Net Neutrality, labor laws, and "crisis pregnancy clinics" to name some partisan issues from the past three days.
I am surprised that the mention of a respected male author using strong female characters to tell his stories has triggered your anti-SJW impulses. You should be too.
Strong women neither break your leg nor pick your pocket. Watch a Russ Meyer film and relax.*
That said, I assumed Murakami was a text input method when I read the headline.
*Trigger warning: women depicted may do much worse than break legs and pick pockets.
While both the democratic and republican pay lip service to having different ideologies, which is bullshit. When it comes down to they both serve the same master, the one with the deepest pockets. Democrat, republican same coin, just different sides.
I remember hearing people say this about Al Gore and George W. Bush, Obama and McCain, Obama and Romney, and Clinton and Trump.
They have been seismically wrong each time.
The fact that you are making such an assertion about a policy that a Democrat-headed FCC initiated, and a Republican-headed FCC reversed should give make you think twice, or at least have given the the people who modded you to +5 a moment of pause.
I'm not claiming that you have an obligation to limit your political participation to the two major parties. But when you vote for Jill Stein or Gary "Aleppo" Johnson you are not meaningfully participating, and we end up with what we have . . . including the repeal of net neutrality, kids in camps, and idiotic trade wars (to name three issues from this past *week*).
If we start hearing that the press is being regularly harassed because of its coverage of minor traffic accidents in Scotland, then I will be more inclined to think that this is a free speech issue, rather than an Andy Smith issue.
How does this guy keep getting/. articles based on his uncorroborated, self-published, vaguely overwrought blog posts?
Dude, can you post the video that saved your hide?
The charging documents?
Can you have someone from the union release a statement on what they accomplished?
It sounds like you pissed off an asshole cop, and the prosecutor looked at the evidence and decided to drop the case. It's too bad you had to go through that, but is there a tech angle that I am missing?
I won't bury the lede: You're attempting to blame a right-wing boogey man for the hostile acts of a foreign power.
I have to think that the MSM is partly to blame here.
There is really no trusted news authority one can go to for verification or accurate information any more. I suppose there used to be only a *perception* of accurate reporting, but even that has vanished in the age of internet fact-checking.
You are blaming the MSM for not being all things to all people. There is no universally trusted news authority because people seek out sources that confirm their preconceptions. Also, a foreign power released propaganda using the "emotional engagement" that you decry below to make people trust the media less.
During the run-up to the presidential election, otherwise legitimate news sources spewed a torrent of contempt, insults, and partisan framing. After the election, those same news sources went absolutely ballistic over the results.
Donald Trump is unfit to be president. It isn't a partisan issue (see the many "never Trumper" conservatives), any more than saying shit stinks.
Even today, highly regarded sources such as MSNBC and CNN post factually incorrect statements and politically misleading facts, that have to be quietly walked back a few days later.
Is it any wonder that people look to alternate sources?
I would prefer infallible news sources. At least MSNBC and CNN post retractions when they are wrong. The trolls and bots and Sean Hannity don't.
You used to be able to go to online fact-checking sites such as Snopes.com and politifact, but even these have been taken over by partisan views. I've researched a couple of Snopes articles myself and found them to be either completely wrong, whitewashed, or highly misleading.
See above.
Even now polls that report inconvenient truths [Breitbart link] are being suppressed.
Not every outlier poll deserves 15 minutes of fame. Also, I'll note the irony of pivoting from a breitbart story to...
If the news organizations started simply reporting what happened, instead of trying to get emotional engagement by emotionally framing the facts, people might leave the fringe sources and go back to regular news.
(Of note: CNN's ratings are [different breitbart link] down 20% compared to a year ago. I cannot understand how they believe what they're doing is in their best interests. I thought it was the fiducial responsibility of a corporation to make money, and pushing a political agenda seems to be a poor strategy for that.)
Corporations do not have a fiduciary obligation to make money (but it is a common misconception). Pushing a political agenda has been a very good strategy for some news outlets. "Simply reporting what happened" is a riskier game, and companies that do that offer suffer in the ratings.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results, but it looks like the price of electricity had gone up about 40% between 1998 and 2010 (which is when the first site I found stopped counting). So from 8 cents to 12 cents in 20 years (I'll say the last 8 years of inflation added half-a-cent). This means your $50 a month would be $75 a month in 20 years—assuming none of the suede/denim skulduggery you fear.
https://inflationdata.com/arti...
This reminds me of another benefit I didn't see mentioned (browsing at +X on my phone): there is an infrastructure component to this as well. Having semi self sufficient homes reduces the need for more generation facilities. And the decentralized generation may be helpful when the big one hits.
I appreciate that you took the time to do this, but the OSC's letter is pretty clear. Mr. O'Reilly is an employee of an Executive Agency, and made an appearance at CPAC as an FCC commissioner where he endorsed Trump for re-election, and thereby violated 7323(1)(1) by"use[ing] his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election."
7322 definitions, nothing interesting
I think your problem started with skipping 7322, which defines "employee" in a way that includes Mr. O'Reilly. Exception 7323(2)(A) does not apply because Mr. O'Reilly was not working as a campaign manager. 7324 is not the cited violation, so the exceptions are irrelevant. (The distinction between "official authority" (7323) and "on duty" (7324) is also relevant.)
So you're saying that the Office of Special Counsel went off the rails beginning with the third sentence:
The Hatch Act restricts certain political activities of federal executive branch employees, except for the President and the Vice President. 5 U.S.C. 7321-7326.
There are solutions and consequences. One solution is to raise minimum wage, in so doing inflation will also rise.
I have only heard even anecdotal evidence of minimum wage increasing prices for low-margin businesses that rely on minimum-wage labor for the bulk of their value-adding (e.g. food service). But even there, the cost per item is minor.
In-N-Out is not much more expensive than McDonald's, even though their starting wage is 17% more than the median burger-flipping wage (per the first search result I looked at). For capital-intensive businesses, or businesses that rely on skilled labor, the effect of an increase in the minimum wage will be even less noticeable.
Subsidizing Amazon because it refuses to pay its employees enough to live is not working "reasonably well." It isn't fair to the workers, and it isn't fair to me, and it isn't fair to business that pay their workers enough to live.
I can't speak for the parent (who was modded down for no discernible reason), but I took "every reason to think" to refer to statements that had no good-faith evidence, like that the UK poisoned a former Russian spy with Russian nerve poison, or that the people Syria were faking their exposure to nerve poisons.
There are all sorts of good reasons reasons to be against military intervention (by the U.S. and Russia) but the troll arguments typically blossom only when the US and EU forces are the ones intervening, and their post-truth framing of the issues is often a tell.
Honestly, the cries of McCarthyism about this issue are also evidence of either being a mark, or in on the con.
The disconnect between finance and the average American is such that bad news for stocks may be based on good news for everyone (e.g. low unemployment). But uncertainty, incompetence, and boldfaced lying are not good for either—and that is what we have now.
Tariffs have their place to address certain issues, but see above.
Slashdot Mirror
I think a "sales tax" that only applied on the sale of out of state goods would be effectively a tariff and violate the ICC (unless *maybe* the item was alcohol). The SCOTUS ruling doesn't allow that that and the sites you linked to claiming otherwise are run and frequented by . . .common clay of the new west.
The county should take it via eminent domain and pay Apple the claimed value. The public good underlying the taking would be discouraging this sort of BS.
Absurd strawman of the academic left is blamed for a long-standing undercurrent of the political right --modded +5 insightful.
I just thought I would point that out
My exposure to board-level people is that the positions are sinecures meant to demonstrate the bonafides of the company and provide inside access to the resources that board member is associated: eg. inventment banker, or someone from a VC firm, or the President's son. In other words the notion of "most qualified" is laughable.
California is attempting to address the chicken-and-egg problem of increasing the number of women in a position to be influential enough to ask to join the board in the first place.
This bill is a pretty blunt-force approach, but corporations are creatures of the state and this isn't an instance where a quota would have an impact on anything that could pretend to be a meritocracy.
"The American people realize that a lot of our greatest technical innovation took place when internet speeds averaged out at 56k, so . . ."
My initial thought was that this is ridiculous overreach. But the government regularly says where restaurants can and can't be. Framed as : You can't open a restaurant in your house, or your barber shop (I bet), or your office building—it is less unreasonable.
On the plus side, cities are supposed to be the most accountable governmental unit, and the easiest to leave.
Also, some drastic municipal ordinances (no smoking in restaurants, no plastic bags, no large sodas) come to be seen as common sense.
I don't remember the particulars of the law, but I can see a case for making the local, rather than global population determinative. For example, if Grey Wolves are occupying keystone spot and killing all of them will give you a rampant deer population, and that will eat all of the rare lilies that some butterfly needs to reproduce . . . and so on. But instead we get lobbyists writing: "Dear Mr. President, there are too many species nowadays. Please allow us to eliminate some via stack ranking to eliminate the least economically valuable."
If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.
As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.
IOW: Call your (R) representative to hear why the free market, Constitution, and Jesus demand everything Comcast lobbyists want.
And the next time someone says there is no difference between the two parties, ask about Net Neutrality, labor laws, and "crisis pregnancy clinics" to name some partisan issues from the past three days.
I am surprised that the mention of a respected male author using strong female characters to tell his stories has triggered your anti-SJW impulses. You should be too.
Strong women neither break your leg nor pick your pocket. Watch a Russ Meyer film and relax.*
That said, I assumed Murakami was a text input method when I read the headline.
*Trigger warning: women depicted may do much worse than break legs and pick pockets.
While both the democratic and republican pay lip service to having different ideologies, which is bullshit. When it comes down to they both serve the same master, the one with the deepest pockets. Democrat, republican same coin, just different sides.
I remember hearing people say this about Al Gore and George W. Bush, Obama and McCain, Obama and Romney, and Clinton and Trump.
They have been seismically wrong each time.
The fact that you are making such an assertion about a policy that a Democrat-headed FCC initiated, and a Republican-headed FCC reversed should give make you think twice, or at least have given the the people who modded you to +5 a moment of pause.
I'm not claiming that you have an obligation to limit your political participation to the two major parties. But when you vote for Jill Stein or Gary "Aleppo" Johnson you are not meaningfully participating, and we end up with what we have . . . including the repeal of net neutrality, kids in camps, and idiotic trade wars (to name three issues from this past *week*).
If we start hearing that the press is being regularly harassed because of its coverage of minor traffic accidents in Scotland, then I will be more inclined to think that this is a free speech issue, rather than an Andy Smith issue.
How does this guy keep getting /. articles based on his uncorroborated, self-published, vaguely overwrought blog posts?
Dude, can you post the video that saved your hide?
The charging documents?
Can you have someone from the union release a statement on what they accomplished?
It sounds like you pissed off an asshole cop, and the prosecutor looked at the evidence and decided to drop the case. It's too bad you had to go through that, but is there a tech angle that I am missing?
I use Kmail (Kontact, actually) and still have the occasional hiccup where I have to restart Akonadi, but it used to be much, much worse.
I have to think that the MSM is partly to blame here.
There is really no trusted news authority one can go to for verification or accurate information any more. I suppose there used to be only a *perception* of accurate reporting, but even that has vanished in the age of internet fact-checking.
You are blaming the MSM for not being all things to all people. There is no universally trusted news authority because people seek out sources that confirm their preconceptions. Also, a foreign power released propaganda using the "emotional engagement" that you decry below to make people trust the media less.
During the run-up to the presidential election, otherwise legitimate news sources spewed a torrent of contempt, insults, and partisan framing. After the election, those same news sources went absolutely ballistic over the results.
Donald Trump is unfit to be president. It isn't a partisan issue (see the many "never Trumper" conservatives), any more than saying shit stinks.
Even today, highly regarded sources such as MSNBC and CNN post factually incorrect statements and politically misleading facts, that have to be quietly walked back a few days later.
Is it any wonder that people look to alternate sources?
I would prefer infallible news sources. At least MSNBC and CNN post retractions when they are wrong. The trolls and bots and Sean Hannity don't.
You used to be able to go to online fact-checking sites such as Snopes.com and politifact, but even these have been taken over by partisan views. I've researched a couple of Snopes articles myself and found them to be either completely wrong, whitewashed, or highly misleading.
See above.
Even now polls that report inconvenient truths [Breitbart link] are being suppressed.
Not every outlier poll deserves 15 minutes of fame. Also, I'll note the irony of pivoting from a breitbart story to ...
If the news organizations started simply reporting what happened, instead of trying to get emotional engagement by emotionally framing the facts, people might leave the fringe sources and go back to regular news.
(Of note: CNN's ratings are [different breitbart link] down 20% compared to a year ago. I cannot understand how they believe what they're doing is in their best interests. I thought it was the fiducial responsibility of a corporation to make money, and pushing a political agenda seems to be a poor strategy for that.)
Corporations do not have a fiduciary obligation to make money (but it is a common misconception). Pushing a political agenda has been a very good strategy for some news outlets. "Simply reporting what happened" is a riskier game, and companies that do that offer suffer in the ratings.
Not only that, but the word "abortion" does not refer to killing a child, and might be said to preclude an instance of this ever happening.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results, but it looks like the price of electricity had gone up about 40% between 1998 and 2010 (which is when the first site I found stopped counting). So from 8 cents to 12 cents in 20 years (I'll say the last 8 years of inflation added half-a-cent). This means your $50 a month would be $75 a month in 20 years—assuming none of the suede/denim skulduggery you fear. https://inflationdata.com/arti...
This reminds me of another benefit I didn't see mentioned (browsing at +X on my phone): there is an infrastructure component to this as well. Having semi self sufficient homes reduces the need for more generation facilities. And the decentralized generation may be helpful when the big one hits.
7322 definitions, nothing interesting
I think your problem started with skipping 7322, which defines "employee" in a way that includes Mr. O'Reilly. Exception 7323(2)(A) does not apply because Mr. O'Reilly was not working as a campaign manager. 7324 is not the cited violation, so the exceptions are irrelevant. (The distinction between "official authority" (7323) and "on duty" (7324) is also relevant.)
The Hatch Act restricts certain political activities of federal executive branch employees, except for the President and the Vice President. 5 U.S.C. 7321-7326.
?
There are solutions and consequences. One solution is to raise minimum wage, in so doing inflation will also rise.
I have only heard even anecdotal evidence of minimum wage increasing prices for low-margin businesses that rely on minimum-wage labor for the bulk of their value-adding (e.g. food service). But even there, the cost per item is minor.
In-N-Out is not much more expensive than McDonald's, even though their starting wage is 17% more than the median burger-flipping wage (per the first search result I looked at). For capital-intensive businesses, or businesses that rely on skilled labor, the effect of an increase in the minimum wage will be even less noticeable.
Subsidizing Amazon because it refuses to pay its employees enough to live is not working "reasonably well." It isn't fair to the workers, and it isn't fair to me, and it isn't fair to business that pay their workers enough to live.
There are all sorts of good reasons reasons to be against military intervention (by the U.S. and Russia) but the troll arguments typically blossom only when the US and EU forces are the ones intervening, and their post-truth framing of the issues is often a tell.
Honestly, the cries of McCarthyism about this issue are also evidence of either being a mark, or in on the con.
So, GIGO, and probably not a case for fraud.
Tariffs have their place to address certain issues, but see above.
Under fee simple, the property owner does not have ultimate ownership and the state has a superior claim (allodial title).
What in these links do you think supports this?