This. I pay Netflix and I pay my ISP for a given data rate. If the ISP slows down Netflix because Netflix isn't giving them a cut, something the ISP does not specify in my contract, they are comitting fraud.
The future will turn into lies about the need to do this when all the ISPs will have done is attach to your Netflix fee in perpeturity, regardless of how big the tubes get in the future.
Government funding cannot keep up with private, and you want both. The choice isn't between cheap new wonders and expensive ones. It's between expensive ones and almost none.
That makes a lot more sense. I can't imagine more than a hundred needed for servers and databases, web pages, apps for mobiles, and testing of all that.
That isn't a Co-op. It is just trying to sell stock to individual investors. These people have no idea how public companies are run. Unless you own a significant portion of the shares you aren't changing anything.
This. It's a stupidity to think it can be rescued this way, as if the ownership are complete bumblers that teens and 20-somethings would have any idea about what to do. They would vote on a presentation by a seductive jackass and ride the company into the ground anyway.
Now if peeps on your tweets gave you a profit share, so to speak, people would be more motivated to use it, and produce quality tweets. Like YouTube.
No. Yokes thrown over industry wreck it, leaving everyone worse off rather than raising the maples up.
This whole discussion is idiotic, having nothing to do with the OP, and is most likely due to paid astroturfing to inject distracting outrage trollings.
Here is the real story and the eventual history that will be Trump's: Destruction of the US global power and influence
Ok, I'll reply. This destruction was well under way under Obama and the left, who hold as a plan for the future for the US to fall into wimpydom as China dominates the world. They view it as inevitable, so might as well turn to taxing and borrowing the hell out of ourselves to help our decline along while garnering votes.
I didn't mod this down, but I expect those upset that you were modded down will, with no feeling of irony, mod this down.
Yes, but soon police are tackling and killing people who sell single cigarettes, not because it's a huge crime, but because it cuts into revenue of government-as-highway-robber.
I keep hearing they're anemic, but much power on the Republican side was wielded by people who were libertarian-oriented in many of their viewpoints.
Many of the big columnists, Alan Greenspan, even Ronald Reagan (economically, though not on social issues) were such.
How? Insofar as many started as conservatives, conservatism is against the use of government power to reach into new areas without careful consideration.
What part of this do you think violates Article II? They're not talking about joining into a treaty, only abiding by it.
They might get away with it as long as they aren't binding themselves. However, if Congress specifically considered and declined to adopt the treaty, then that negative aspect could rule the land as Congress' treaty power supersedes states' general lawmaking.
I don't know how it would turn out if they choose to bind themselves, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
"The analysis suggests the two black holes that coalesced had starting masses that were just over 31 times and 19 times that of our Sun," reports BBC. "And when they finally came together, they produced a single object of a little under 49 solar masses. It means the unison radiated a simply colossal quantity of pure energy."
I'm calling bullshit that Superman can hold one of these in his hand.
The sad fact is governments already inhale productivity increases by keeping borrowing proportional to GDP.
So...taxing robots directly will slow their adoption, which will slow the GDP increase, which will slow the ability to borrow hand over fist from your grandchildren in order to hand out goodies to the current voting generation that have little to do with war or infrastructure, the old-fashioned, quaint idea of things it was moral to borrow from future generations for, because it benefited them.
I don't get this. In 2012 the Republicans were in a mess, so much so they thought they had the presidency won. Rove famously started panicking as it became clear Romney wasn't gonna win. (Some was theatrics get out the vote to help discouraged Republicans vote in downstream contests in western states, no doubt, but clearly it was unexpected.)
It was the Dems who won the day with big, advanced data mining.
Netflix already kicks back some of what you pay them to your telecom company. While I can't argue if they want to get larger pipes to your home sooner rather than later, that the telecom companies demand this of Netflix or they will crappify your service violates your contract with your telecom company.
You probably aren't aware they are lying to you when they tell you they will give you a certain bit rate for a certain fee you pay. They actually extort more money from what you pay Netflix or they will activate their lie to you and slow down your Netflix speed.
... for a court to be putting into a "like" button.
For one thing, does "liking" using the button imply endorsement? Does "like" mean what they think it means? Or was the person's intention? And what if it was inadvertent clicking?
What if the button was called "interesting..." instead?
You would think that a court would restrain itself and hesitate to rule, given so many possibilities of meaning and ambiguities here...
Logically, just liking something is a statement and not promoting it (this all, btw, is in a country without a First Amendment.)
But in this, I think they were relying on the like button mechanically adding to a popularity counter, or some other such thing, which increased the number of people it was passed on to as a story for their scroll walls. Hence to like is to help redistribute the offending speech, and thus legally actionable.
To sum up: If a Best Buy employee stumbles across something illegal, and alerts the authorities, it's not a 4th Amendment violation (which requires a warrant signed by a judge.)
If they are asking him to search, then he becomes an agent of government, and a warrant is required, and the search is invalid.
If they fucking pay him, jfc, he's totally a government agent.
Ominpresent cameras are bad because they aid in a panopticon. On the other hand, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and the corruption and dictatorships should start drying up as their bad behaviors are documented. This include everything from the top down to the local DMV guy who wants a $200 backhand donation or you can wait 5 years for your driver's license.
And telling you you can't call yourself an engineer is a violation of the First Amendment. In order to get away with this, the government relies on some kind of truth in advertising/snake oil concept. As such, the government's authority to override the First Amendment only swells in the context of advertising for or satisfying a client.
There was no client in this case, just a citizen talking about the government's behavior (the most highly protected of all speech) and as such, the government has no power to stop him from calling himself an engineer.
There are many posts concerned about him calling himself an engineer, but they're all oriented about this concept even though they don't realize it. Courts are happy to clear this up by defining what it means: Searching for, or satisfying, an actual client.
In other words, the government's power to control speech, censor in First Amendment terms, is only permissible here in the context of commercial speech (some think even that is an overreach, but that's an argument for a different day.)
So if you are advertising for clients, or dealing with a client, the government can make sure you are a Professional Engineer, or whatever they define there. He isn't, so they tried to punish him for claiming so.
The difference here, though, was that the government isn't one of his clients, and anybody has infinite First Amendment rights to beak off about the government and its behaviors. That is the most highly protected of all speech (even knowing lies are protected, IIRC, lest the government become the Decider of Truth in speech against it.)
And in that context, the commercial concept does not apply, so the government has no power to stop him from calling himself an engineer. The takeaway: Courts treat the First Amendment seriously and delimit the government's powers to censor to very strictly-controlled areas.
We also produce half of the inventions that make life better and longer. Perhaps we would all be better off if the rest of the world was more like us, not the other way around.
Slashdot Mirror
This. I pay Netflix and I pay my ISP for a given data rate. If the ISP slows down Netflix because Netflix isn't giving them a cut, something the ISP does not specify in my contract, they are comitting fraud.
The future will turn into lies about the need to do this when all the ISPs will have done is attach to your Netflix fee in perpeturity, regardless of how big the tubes get in the future.
Government funding cannot keep up with private, and you want both. The choice isn't between cheap new wonders and expensive ones. It's between expensive ones and almost none.
It's good enough for GSM short message service and the like. Remember it started as a cross-media thing.
Remember Ryan on The Office with his WUPHF, also doing pagers and faxes?
That makes a lot more sense. I can't imagine more than a hundred needed for servers and databases, web pages, apps for mobiles, and testing of all that.
Now, how to get me a piece of that
That isn't a Co-op. It is just trying to sell stock to individual investors. These people have no idea how public companies are run. Unless you own a significant portion of the shares you aren't changing anything.
This. It's a stupidity to think it can be rescued this way, as if the ownership are complete bumblers that teens and 20-somethings would have any idea about what to do. They would vote on a presentation by a seductive jackass and ride the company into the ground anyway.
Now if peeps on your tweets gave you a profit share, so to speak, people would be more motivated to use it, and produce quality tweets. Like YouTube.
No. Yokes thrown over industry wreck it, leaving everyone worse off rather than raising the maples up.
This whole discussion is idiotic, having nothing to do with the OP, and is most likely due to paid astroturfing to inject distracting outrage trollings.
They can reveal the algorithm without revealing the source code. This is just secrecy so the government can get away with bias.
When freedom is contingent on secret rules, freedom is lost. The same goes for "copyrighted" laws where you can't get a copy without paying for it.
There's an algorithm that will break that into paragraphs for you.
Here is the real story and the eventual history that will be Trump's: Destruction of the US global power and influence
Ok, I'll reply. This destruction was well under way under Obama and the left, who hold as a plan for the future for the US to fall into wimpydom as China dominates the world. They view it as inevitable, so might as well turn to taxing and borrowing the hell out of ourselves to help our decline along while garnering votes.
I didn't mod this down, but I expect those upset that you were modded down will, with no feeling of irony, mod this down.
Yes, but soon police are tackling and killing people who sell single cigarettes, not because it's a huge crime, but because it cuts into revenue of government-as-highway-robber.
I keep hearing they're anemic, but much power on the Republican side was wielded by people who were libertarian-oriented in many of their viewpoints.
Many of the big columnists, Alan Greenspan, even Ronald Reagan (economically, though not on social issues) were such.
How? Insofar as many started as conservatives, conservatism is against the use of government power to reach into new areas without careful consideration.
What part of this do you think violates Article II? They're not talking about joining into a treaty, only abiding by it.
They might get away with it as long as they aren't binding themselves. However, if Congress specifically considered and declined to adopt the treaty, then that negative aspect could rule the land as Congress' treaty power supersedes states' general lawmaking.
I don't know how it would turn out if they choose to bind themselves, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
"The analysis suggests the two black holes that coalesced had starting masses that were just over 31 times and 19 times that of our Sun," reports BBC. "And when they finally came together, they produced a single object of a little under 49 solar masses. It means the unison radiated a simply colossal quantity of pure energy."
I'm calling bullshit that Superman can hold one of these in his hand.
The sad fact is governments already inhale productivity increases by keeping borrowing proportional to GDP.
So...taxing robots directly will slow their adoption, which will slow the GDP increase, which will slow the ability to borrow hand over fist from your grandchildren in order to hand out goodies to the current voting generation that have little to do with war or infrastructure, the old-fashioned, quaint idea of things it was moral to borrow from future generations for, because it benefited them.
This is why many businesses just did away with sick days and gave employees free days instead of vacation, adding 5 days to their vacation time.
Now you can use those days for whatever you want.
I don't get this. In 2012 the Republicans were in a mess, so much so they thought they had the presidency won. Rove famously started panicking as it became clear Romney wasn't gonna win. (Some was theatrics get out the vote to help discouraged Republicans vote in downstream contests in western states, no doubt, but clearly it was unexpected.)
It was the Dems who won the day with big, advanced data mining.
What the hell happened?
Netflix already kicks back some of what you pay them to your telecom company. While I can't argue if they want to get larger pipes to your home sooner rather than later, that the telecom companies demand this of Netflix or they will crappify your service violates your contract with your telecom company.
You probably aren't aware they are lying to you when they tell you they will give you a certain bit rate for a certain fee you pay. They actually extort more money from what you pay Netflix or they will activate their lie to you and slow down your Netflix speed.
... for a court to be putting into a "like" button.
For one thing, does "liking" using the button imply endorsement? Does "like" mean what they think it means? Or was the person's intention? And what if it was inadvertent clicking?
What if the button was called "interesting..." instead?
You would think that a court would restrain itself and hesitate to rule, given so many possibilities of meaning and ambiguities here...
Logically, just liking something is a statement and not promoting it (this all, btw, is in a country without a First Amendment.)
But in this, I think they were relying on the like button mechanically adding to a popularity counter, or some other such thing, which increased the number of people it was passed on to as a story for their scroll walls. Hence to like is to help redistribute the offending speech, and thus legally actionable.
The motorcycle gang's name was Hooligans and the sub-unit that stole the Jeeps was named Dirty 30.
Sounds like a great movie plot. F9 of the Furious, here we come!
To sum up: If a Best Buy employee stumbles across something illegal, and alerts the authorities, it's not a 4th Amendment violation (which requires a warrant signed by a judge.)
If they are asking him to search, then he becomes an agent of government, and a warrant is required, and the search is invalid.
If they fucking pay him, jfc, he's totally a government agent.
Ominpresent cameras are bad because they aid in a panopticon. On the other hand, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and the corruption and dictatorships should start drying up as their bad behaviors are documented. This include everything from the top down to the local DMV guy who wants a $200 backhand donation or you can wait 5 years for your driver's license.
And telling you you can't call yourself an engineer is a violation of the First Amendment. In order to get away with this, the government relies on some kind of truth in advertising/snake oil concept. As such, the government's authority to override the First Amendment only swells in the context of advertising for or satisfying a client.
There was no client in this case, just a citizen talking about the government's behavior (the most highly protected of all speech) and as such, the government has no power to stop him from calling himself an engineer.
There are many posts concerned about him calling himself an engineer, but they're all oriented about this concept even though they don't realize it. Courts are happy to clear this up by defining what it means: Searching for, or satisfying, an actual client.
In other words, the government's power to control speech, censor in First Amendment terms, is only permissible here in the context of commercial speech (some think even that is an overreach, but that's an argument for a different day.)
So if you are advertising for clients, or dealing with a client, the government can make sure you are a Professional Engineer, or whatever they define there. He isn't, so they tried to punish him for claiming so.
The difference here, though, was that the government isn't one of his clients, and anybody has infinite First Amendment rights to beak off about the government and its behaviors. That is the most highly protected of all speech (even knowing lies are protected, IIRC, lest the government become the Decider of Truth in speech against it.)
And in that context, the commercial concept does not apply, so the government has no power to stop him from calling himself an engineer. The takeaway: Courts treat the First Amendment seriously and delimit the government's powers to censor to very strictly-controlled areas.
We also produce half of the inventions that make life better and longer. Perhaps we would all be better off if the rest of the world was more like us, not the other way around.
It's not 'cause they didn't wanna. It's 'cause they died.