Bartering is still taxed the same as income in every state I know of, and still counts as income for federal income tax purposes. E.g., if you give me a sheep for fixing your PC, I just had a taxable event at the prevailing market rate for one sheep. This is true whether it's goods or services that are exchanged. It does allow for some wiggle room in your valuation perhaps, but everything's negotiable anyway, so there's not much advantage over bartering. OTOH, it may be a bit easier to get your money back than to get your sheep back when you find out that the grain I exchanged was spoiled. Additionally, being left with a pot full of BitCoins when the music stops is like having a jug full of babysitter tokens -- absolutely worthless if nobody else wants them. The same is true of any fiat currency of course, or even backed currency if the underlying asset becomes worthless. The difference is that the full faith and credit of the US government probably carries a bit more weight than the full faith and credit of an anonymous internet startup. For now, anyway.
He has also tested the drug combination on living cells with results that 'exceeded his expectations.'
This may or may not be impressive depending on what his expectations were. Hopefully they were higher than "causes massive trauma to healthy tissue," where "causes significant trauma to healthy tissue" would exceed expectations.
Fuck you, you take a train. Why should I suffer just because you're a coward? Let the pussies ride trains and the rest of us can go back to enjoying life without worrying about every possible, though statistically improbable, scenario that might kill us.
Only in movies and on TV. In the real world it's just a part of an overall investigation, and it's only useful when there's existing evidence from which to create a profile. You can't just say "Something might happen, we want to know what it will be and who will do it. Go."
And while the McVeigh reference might be 15 years old (which is only a long time for someone who's too young to know better), I'm pretty sure that the last person to intentionally fly a plane into a building in this country was a white male. As was the last person to go on a shooting spree, the guy who ran the biggest Ponzi scam of all time, probably most of the people responsible for the housing bubble, and certainly the person responsible for our last unprovoked ground war in southwest Asia. So who's really the bigger threat?
Political pressure is forming against TSA, Janet Napolitano, and by extension Obama. If he wants to be re-elected he will need to change TSA. It is a constant source of embarrassment to him.
I hope this is true. I was pretty irked myself when Obama joked about inappropriate pat-downs during the State of the Union, as if he had no control over it. And he's not exactly someone who has to watch his wife and kids getting felt up every time they travel, which just adds insult to injury.
The problem is that too few people of below average intelligence can apply critical thinking to a problem, and too few of those above average intelligence bother to try (with some portion of the second group actively working to dupe the first).
The only thing a new driver has to show is the ability to drive around the block and parallel park without crashing, and I'm pretty sure they don't interview peers or parents to find out if they're particularly responsible before issuing a license.
Of course that doesn't mean there shouldn't be more robust standards for automated drivers, just that maybe our standard for *human* drivers is a bit too low.
120 cars x 1 month = 10 years. Honestly, I'd be satisfied with safety once the accident and fatality rates per hours driven drop below the average human driver, and with many cars on the road, it wouldn't take long at all to gather that information. Frankly, I'm more concerned about the people texting while driving than I am about Google's cars, especially after watching them in action:
I would love a vehicle that would allow me to go party downtown and take my own ride without paying $75 for a cab or relying on a designated driver. This would also be perfect for solo cross-country roadtrips, and even daily commutes if you're someone who views driving as a chore. How does one become a beta tester for these things?
the main reason users in developing countries resort to piracy is because they can't afford Western-style pricing.
Shit, most westerners can't afford Western-style pricing. That said, the market has already factored piracy into its pricing, otherwise the major software houses would have been out of business long ago. Of course, there are (or have historically been) legitimate means to get steep discounts on software, including buying used software or buying wholesale/OEM copies, but the industry seems bound and determined to convert those paying customers to pirates as well.
Except that's not how it works. It's not our job to prove that the relevancy; it's the government's job to prove the necessity of keeping them classified. That's the same standard I have when it comes to potential illegal wiretapping, government sponsored torture, or false pretenses for war, and my principles aren't going to change just because it might sully our image or piss somebody off. Those are not good reasons for abandoning our principles. In fact, it's the worst possible reason: cowardice.
Of course they care, but they're powerless to do anything about it and ISPs (particularly cable providers, though any triple-play provider) would love nothing more than to see Netflix fail. So you're thinking completely in reverse: what you really need is half of Netflix customers threatening to cancel their ISP contracts.
But the point is that they don't use that much data now, and this is an attempt to keep them from using that much data ever.
Exactly. And the author of TFA has already forgotten that caps aren't new -- Comcast implemented them back in Fall of '08. And to underscore your point, that was almost 3 years ago and they haven't raised them since, and certainly haven't scaled in proportion to the speeds of up to 100Mbit that they now offer.
It's not an either/or situation; the two parts go hand in hand. "Own it on DVD today" means you can own the copy of the content on the media specified. Nothing less, but nothing more either*.
* Barring any additional requirements or protections as established by law -- essentially none in the U.S.
In the beginning, Bob created the heavens and the earth. But his emulation of Newtonian physics was but partially implemented, and so he only got a B-.
In practice, people don't always know what they want in the first place, or stick to their stated intention once it's time to actually go through with it. Additionally, there's no way to ensure that the voting sample is in any way representative of the buying public, which could leave the farm with a glut of unsellable product.
I think it should actually be closer to Rule #5. Rules against exploding are overrated, both from a risk and a cost to enforce standpoint. Infringement of personal rights and liberties happens much more frequently than explosions, and I'd rather see their protection protection occupying rules 1-4.
It's strange that we accept some level of death in ground transportation and recognize that the bigger problems are traffic jams, since a 1 hour delay can easily equate to several man years of lost time, but 1 death is only ever 1 man-lifetime lost at worst. Even though our acceptance of death on the road is probably unintentional and implicit rather than explicit, it exists nonetheless. If and when we can collectively view tragedy in the air in proportion to its actual impact instead of its shock factor (owing to the fact that it's so rare in the first place), then maybe I'll start flying again.
Slashdot Mirror
Bartering is still taxed the same as income in every state I know of, and still counts as income for federal income tax purposes. E.g., if you give me a sheep for fixing your PC, I just had a taxable event at the prevailing market rate for one sheep. This is true whether it's goods or services that are exchanged. It does allow for some wiggle room in your valuation perhaps, but everything's negotiable anyway, so there's not much advantage over bartering. OTOH, it may be a bit easier to get your money back than to get your sheep back when you find out that the grain I exchanged was spoiled. Additionally, being left with a pot full of BitCoins when the music stops is like having a jug full of babysitter tokens -- absolutely worthless if nobody else wants them. The same is true of any fiat currency of course, or even backed currency if the underlying asset becomes worthless. The difference is that the full faith and credit of the US government probably carries a bit more weight than the full faith and credit of an anonymous internet startup. For now, anyway.
Now you're just being sensationalist. TBH, it reminds me of something from the Daily Mail.
You can't patent math, and besides, that technique is probably older than anyone reading Slashdot, which I'm sure includes more than a few boomers.
Scissors beat paper which had previously beaten rock. Will scissors now beat rock? Stay tuned!
He has also tested the drug combination on living cells with results that 'exceeded his expectations.'
This may or may not be impressive depending on what his expectations were. Hopefully they were higher than "causes massive trauma to healthy tissue," where "causes significant trauma to healthy tissue" would exceed expectations.
Fuck you, you take a train. Why should I suffer just because you're a coward? Let the pussies ride trains and the rest of us can go back to enjoying life without worrying about every possible, though statistically improbable, scenario that might kill us.
Profiling works to catch serial killers
Only in movies and on TV. In the real world it's just a part of an overall investigation, and it's only useful when there's existing evidence from which to create a profile. You can't just say "Something might happen, we want to know what it will be and who will do it. Go."
And while the McVeigh reference might be 15 years old (which is only a long time for someone who's too young to know better), I'm pretty sure that the last person to intentionally fly a plane into a building in this country was a white male. As was the last person to go on a shooting spree, the guy who ran the biggest Ponzi scam of all time, probably most of the people responsible for the housing bubble, and certainly the person responsible for our last unprovoked ground war in southwest Asia. So who's really the bigger threat?
Leave my wife out of this.
Political pressure is forming against TSA, Janet Napolitano, and by extension Obama. If he wants to be re-elected he will need to change TSA. It is a constant source of embarrassment to him.
I hope this is true. I was pretty irked myself when Obama joked about inappropriate pat-downs during the State of the Union, as if he had no control over it. And he's not exactly someone who has to watch his wife and kids getting felt up every time they travel, which just adds insult to injury.
I averaged about 15,000 frequent flier miles/yr before they installed backscatter machines at my local airport. Since then I've accrued 0.
Call me when the shenanigans are over.
The problem is that too few people of below average intelligence can apply critical thinking to a problem, and too few of those above average intelligence bother to try (with some portion of the second group actively working to dupe the first).
The only thing a new driver has to show is the ability to drive around the block and parallel park without crashing, and I'm pretty sure they don't interview peers or parents to find out if they're particularly responsible before issuing a license.
Of course that doesn't mean there shouldn't be more robust standards for automated drivers, just that maybe our standard for *human* drivers is a bit too low.
120 cars x 1 month = 10 years. Honestly, I'd be satisfied with safety once the accident and fatality rates per hours driven drop below the average human driver, and with many cars on the road, it wouldn't take long at all to gather that information. Frankly, I'm more concerned about the people texting while driving than I am about Google's cars, especially after watching them in action:
Public street: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0I5DHOETFE
Closed course: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9Fxp3HK6DI
I would love a vehicle that would allow me to go party downtown and take my own ride without paying $75 for a cab or relying on a designated driver. This would also be perfect for solo cross-country roadtrips, and even daily commutes if you're someone who views driving as a chore. How does one become a beta tester for these things?
the main reason users in developing countries resort to piracy is because they can't afford Western-style pricing.
Shit, most westerners can't afford Western-style pricing. That said, the market has already factored piracy into its pricing, otherwise the major software houses would have been out of business long ago. Of course, there are (or have historically been) legitimate means to get steep discounts on software, including buying used software or buying wholesale/OEM copies, but the industry seems bound and determined to convert those paying customers to pirates as well.
Except that's not how it works. It's not our job to prove that the relevancy; it's the government's job to prove the necessity of keeping them classified. That's the same standard I have when it comes to potential illegal wiretapping, government sponsored torture, or false pretenses for war, and my principles aren't going to change just because it might sully our image or piss somebody off. Those are not good reasons for abandoning our principles. In fact, it's the worst possible reason: cowardice.
Of course they care, but they're powerless to do anything about it and ISPs (particularly cable providers, though any triple-play provider) would love nothing more than to see Netflix fail. So you're thinking completely in reverse: what you really need is half of Netflix customers threatening to cancel their ISP contracts.
But the point is that they don't use that much data now, and this is an attempt to keep them from using that much data ever.
Exactly. And the author of TFA has already forgotten that caps aren't new -- Comcast implemented them back in Fall of '08. And to underscore your point, that was almost 3 years ago and they haven't raised them since, and certainly haven't scaled in proportion to the speeds of up to 100Mbit that they now offer.
Precedent.
Not a good way to dive into a market
Or a great way if you explicitly want to exclude iOS users and drive uptake of a competing mobile OS.
It's not an either/or situation; the two parts go hand in hand. "Own it on DVD today" means you can own the copy of the content on the media specified. Nothing less, but nothing more either*.
* Barring any additional requirements or protections as established by law -- essentially none in the U.S.
In the beginning, Bob created the heavens and the earth. But his emulation of Newtonian physics was but partially implemented, and so he only got a B-.
In theory it sounds good.
In practice, people don't always know what they want in the first place, or stick to their stated intention once it's time to actually go through with it. Additionally, there's no way to ensure that the voting sample is in any way representative of the buying public, which could leave the farm with a glut of unsellable product.
Okay, then... Imagine a car as if it were immersed in honey.
I think it should actually be closer to Rule #5. Rules against exploding are overrated, both from a risk and a cost to enforce standpoint. Infringement of personal rights and liberties happens much more frequently than explosions, and I'd rather see their protection protection occupying rules 1-4.
It's strange that we accept some level of death in ground transportation and recognize that the bigger problems are traffic jams, since a 1 hour delay can easily equate to several man years of lost time, but 1 death is only ever 1 man-lifetime lost at worst. Even though our acceptance of death on the road is probably unintentional and implicit rather than explicit, it exists nonetheless. If and when we can collectively view tragedy in the air in proportion to its actual impact instead of its shock factor (owing to the fact that it's so rare in the first place), then maybe I'll start flying again.