Wouldn't it be easy for them to get a new top level domain? Where is pokerstars.biz or pokerstars.info or pokerstars.cc? I didn't look very hard so they may have already done this.
I suppose it's obvious that these domain seizures are nothing more than a minor speedbump and and really only specific to TLD's managed in the US. Thankfully, there are countless TLDs that are not US based so choices are aplenty.
I wish they took bets on how quickly they will be back....
This is the first major project that I have seen that comes anywhere close to reaching scale.
A standard, normally sized natural gas combined cycle power plant is anywhere from 600MW on up to 1200MW and maybe even higher. For comparison, the nuke plant in Japan is 4900MW but there are several large super-critical coal plants in the US that are north of 1800MW. No matter what technology is used (nuke, coal, nat gas) it is safe to say a modern, operating power plant STARTS at around 600 MW or so (with maybe a couple of exceptions around the US)
My point in bringing this up is that this is the first "green" project I have seen that has any sense of scale. 396MW is nothing to sneeze at. It is a substantial amount of power but more still needs to be done.
So many of my green friends misunderstand or totally ignore the scale problem. They seem to think we can just put up mirrors and wind farms and all will be right in the world. They never stop to think about how much energy we actually need and compare it to how much energy can be captured by the green efforts. Unfortunately, there is a HUGE gap between those two numbers and no amount of "good faith" will close that gap. It's a physics problem that we haven't solved yet....but this plant is a step in the right direction.
Man, I don't know. That's the $64million question, isn't it? Nobody argues that we need to help those less fortunate and nobody argues that we should be turning people away for emergency care. I think that is pretty well established.
What isn't well established is "how much of one's own production should be aimed toward medicine?". We know we all need it. We also know it has to be paid for by someone. So what is the right balance? Surely we don't want someone spending 100% of their income....but we also don't want them spending 0% of their income.
Just speaking personally, I see a whole lot of people being subsidized who might not need to be. It's hard for me to call someone less fortunate when they are obese, have a cable TV bill, cell phone bill, car payments, place to live/roof over the head, food, etc. And I am not talking just about the poor. I know good friends who sit and bitch about how much they are paying for medicine but have no problem paying that monthly payment for the nice SUV. Talk about jacked up priorities!
Surely, there are people who fall between the cracks. But there are also many more people who abuse the system and expect others to pay for their medicine so they can pay for the iphone, nice car, or whatever.
It is no more complex than realizing you are paying for other people. The reason the prices are so high is because a very high percentage of medical costs go unpaid by those the people who receive them. And when I say they go unpaid, I mean the bill simply isn't paid by anyone. Not insurance. Not the state. Nothing. Guess what happens then? You get to pay instead of them in the form of higher prices. Now throw in some bureaucracy and malpractice attorneys and you have a mix that distorts prices in a major way.
This is a high risk post because of the danger of an emotional response. Before we go on, I want to be clear that I am not coming out against your mother or any derivative thereof. I will try to remain objective so please excuse any slight or perceived slight as it is entirely unintentional.
Now let's begin....so your mother, a high medical risk person, is paying less than the cost for the medical insurance she is getting. Meanwhile, someone else is paying more than their cost so they can subsidize your mother. Or did you think your mother could just "get" $2000 coverage for $700? Whether you realize it or admit it, your mother is subsidized by the rest of taxpayers in your state.
I am not saying that's a good or bad thing. I am simply saying that your mother, by your own admission, is utilizing more medical resources than she can afford. The difference between what she CAN pay and what is being CHARGED is payed by taxpayers.
My only point here is that your "thanks" shouldn't be to Obamacare. Your thanks should be directed to your fellow taxpayers who are subsidizing your mother's medical care via Obamacare.
If I were in your chair, I too would think Obamacare is the greatest thing since sliced bread. But like everything, there are always two sides to the story.
Oh of course....it's those Fat Cat CxO's again! Dang them!
It has nothing to do with regulations or future regulations, right? Nope. And it has nothing to do with subsidizing other people's medical needs? Nope. And it has nothing to do with the high cost of malpractice insurance? Nope. And it has nothing to do with the 1000's of inputs that go into the "medical market"? Nope. According to you, it's just the CxO salaries that moved the needle 20%.
Sir, I think you should apply for a MacArthur Foundation award. You have it figured out and are truly a genius. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
There are so many legitimate questions that were raised by Obamacare that I will leave it to you to educate yourself on the issues. Hint: check the constitutional court case first.
I don't care which side you are on but to pretend there are no legitimate legal questions raised by this new law is just deluding yourself.
Funny, if it's so obvious, then why don't they realize it already? Why does it take someone like you to help them "understand"? Could it be....perhaps....that they are not as dumb as you think they are?
For the things you listed, you basically used the same argument as unions use against business. "No really...we are GOOD for you. You should want us. We are an overall net positive effect for the business". If that was true, then there wouldn't be any problem and the two sides would reach agreement and peace. However, as any reasonable person watching will tell you.....that is the opposite of reality.
The reality is that there is vehement disagreement about high taxes, social programs, and union precisely because it is not clear whether they are positive or negative.
The Democrats have done plenty of nasty stuff, to be sure, but I honestly can't think of anything they've done lately, all on their own, that's so blatantly anti-American as this.
I'll take a shot: Have you heard of Obamacare?
When you are so sure "your side" is right, that usually means it's time to look in the mirror. It reveals more about yourself than it does anything else....
It also applies to any medical records your employer is privy to. Don't forget that when you consider the implications of patient's right to access.
Any employer who is not paying attention to HIPAA is going to (eventually) get in trouble. It's not just healthcare providers and doctors who have to worry about it. It's anyone who handles medical records and/or medical information. Drug test results, results of pre-employment physicals, DOT testing results, etc, etc. All of these are HIPAA related between you and your employer.
I suspect the lawyers are just waiting for a few test cases to trickle through before they open up the floodgates. This CIGNET case is pretty egregious but there will be other cases that will be more nuanced.
You do realize that publicly traded companies aren't "public" like the government, right?
Despite the misnomer, publicly traded companies are still private entities owned by individuals (or groups of individuals). What the heck gives you the right to see ANYTHING they are doing, aside from normal regulatory compliance?
Enron didn't CREATE this market not did they invent the business model.
The GOVERNMENT created the business model. Enron just happened to be ONE of the companies that participated in that business model. You can hate Enron for all the illegal stuff they did (that's fair) but you hating them because they "thought up the business" or because it's their "business model" is just....well....naive.
I get tired of these "tail wagging the dog" statements like you just made. No private company, even Enron, can force a business model. Business models are created, in part, because of the very regulations the government prescribes. Regulation is tough to get right but one thing you can be sure of: all businesses, Enron or otherwise, will react to new regulations and will do anything they can within the law to profit from the same regulations.
You see, the regs cut both ways. That's the part the/. always seems to miss. Your previous post is a good example of that.
Disband corporations? Seriously? I want some of whatever you are smoking.
Good god man, get some perspective.
You clearly have no idea what makes the USA work and apparently, you don't understand why the USA is a superpower. Hint: our corporations are partly responsible.
I realize it is not a perfect system. Nobody has ever claimed it is. But it's the best one we know of. Out of curiosity, what the heck would you replace corporations with?
I don't know the man personally, but I would be shocked and surprised if he is advocating or actively working towards "working people so hard they start killing themselves". Way to take an abnormal event and try to make it seem as if that is the norm. As we know from TFA, it is not the norm.
In sum, I guess I don't understand why you got modded up. Is it just because it feels good to say "If X is right, then I'd rather be wrong than right"? Yea, ok. Brownie points for you.
...and by the way, in case you haven't noticed -- we aren't emulating China. They are emulating us. Or did you miss that whole transition to capitalism/industrialization thing that's been going on for the last 25 years?
or....
Perhaps the US does have too many laws and lawyers. Perhaps it is more competitive to produce products somewhere else. Perhaps US workers think they are more valuable than they really are (so they erect laws to "enforce" that value). Did you ever consider that maybe it's not exploitation he is after but a better sense of balance? The world is not black and white. This is not a "workers of the world unite" vs "the evil business owners". You do recognize there is a middle ground, don't you?
This guy is telling you exactly what his risk/reward calculation is and you only look at one side of the equation.
Instead of responding with cries of exploitation, as yourself this: could he be right?
Unfortunately, capitalists have learned that genuinely fixing problems is rarely the way to maximize their power. Far better to sell a more-or-less ineffective "solution" like the security-industrial complex's "War on Terror" or drug cocktails for AIDS or subsidized "food aid" for povery and hunger. Insert your corporation into one of those cash torrents and you will be in a position of power for decades to come.
....except there is this little thing called "competition" that drives capitalists towards producing a better product. If they don't, they run the risk of someone else displacing them. If they purposely hold back (for any reason) then they place their precious "power" at risk. Don't you get it? In a capitalist economy, the very power you speak of comes from providing the most value. And you provide the most value by continually innovating more than the other competitors in your field (and also doing lots of other things correctly).
I can't believe you went through all of that and then failed to point out the competitive influence angle. That's just one of many beauties found in capitalism - and you just pretend it isn't even there. As if there is some grand conspiracy amongst capitalists to produce sub-par items for the stupid, unsuspecting public......c'mon, get a grip. Companies produce what the market demands. Otherwise, they can't get that power you speak of.
So it's a fee, not a tax. Actually, it's a "business privilege" license. Whatever that is.
Simple solution: quit calling your hobby a business and you won't have to pay the fee for being a business. Nobody is restricting what she can/can't do -- we are only restricting how she "categorizes" her activities for the purposes of accounting and tax preparation.
If, on the other hand, she wants to make this into her business then she needs to pay the relevant taxes, fees, and licensing required to be "in business". If you don't like the taxes, fees, and requirements of being "in business" then use your vote to change things.
I am not clear on what the issue is here. All business have this type of bullshit. Why is this one special? Oh wait, I'm not new here --- this must be Web 3.0.
We are nowhere near 1800 ppl. Try 25. That's why we keep a firm on retainer for advice. That's a much cheaper option than keeping a 6-figure attorney on staff. My god, just the thought of having an attorney on staff makes me shudder!
In my line of work, attorneys are the sales stoppage department.
No, we don't. Is that a serious question? Most companies don't have attorneys on staff. The only people in business who would want attorneys around all the time are other attorneys...
But notices have no legal meaning in the workplace. You can send all the notices you want and they have no legal muscle until you actually leave or the employer "accepts" your offer of resignation under whatever terms you all agreed to.
Just saying "I will leave in 2 weeks" has no legal meaning unless the company responds with "ok, we accept and agree to pay you for the two weeks you plan to work". Until the employer accepts all you have done is advertise that you no longer want to work there. If the employer does not accept, you still retain the right to walk out the door and quit right then and there.
Employment law does not prevent them from firing you on the spot and it does not prevent them from rejecting the terms of your resignation (ie: I work for 2 more weeks, you pay me 2 weeks pay). There is no legal requirement for an employer to "accept" your resignation and the terms you dictate.
If there was a legal requirement for employers, I'd just say I am resigning effective Feb 2022 and you Mr employer have to pay me until then.
Listen, there is no 2 weeks notice that has any meaning from an employee unless the employer accepts those terms. You can offer 2 weeks all you want but it has no meaning until the employer says "agreed". Then and only then is it a contract.
The alternative is that the employer rejects your offer, fires you, and you get nothing. There is nothing in place to prevent that from happening. Again, just because you offer it doesn't mean the employer has to accept your offer of resignation.
This assertion that just because you offer it, an employer must abide is crazy. It is not supported by law or precedence and I don't understand why so many slashdotters miss this. It should be obvious by now that employers can hire/fire at-will in the USA and there are only a few instances where that isn't the case (race, sex, color, sexual preference, etc)
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't it be easy for them to get a new top level domain? Where is pokerstars.biz or pokerstars.info or pokerstars.cc? I didn't look very hard so they may have already done this.
I suppose it's obvious that these domain seizures are nothing more than a minor speedbump and and really only specific to TLD's managed in the US. Thankfully, there are countless TLDs that are not US based so choices are aplenty.
I wish they took bets on how quickly they will be back....
Great point about Hydro. You are correct that I overlooked that in my posting and should have mentioned it. Same for geothermal.
Glad to hear I am not the only one who recognizes this hole in the discussion....
This is the first major project that I have seen that comes anywhere close to reaching scale.
A standard, normally sized natural gas combined cycle power plant is anywhere from 600MW on up to 1200MW and maybe even higher. For comparison, the nuke plant in Japan is 4900MW but there are several large super-critical coal plants in the US that are north of 1800MW. No matter what technology is used (nuke, coal, nat gas) it is safe to say a modern, operating power plant STARTS at around 600 MW or so (with maybe a couple of exceptions around the US)
My point in bringing this up is that this is the first "green" project I have seen that has any sense of scale. 396MW is nothing to sneeze at. It is a substantial amount of power but more still needs to be done.
So many of my green friends misunderstand or totally ignore the scale problem. They seem to think we can just put up mirrors and wind farms and all will be right in the world. They never stop to think about how much energy we actually need and compare it to how much energy can be captured by the green efforts. Unfortunately, there is a HUGE gap between those two numbers and no amount of "good faith" will close that gap. It's a physics problem that we haven't solved yet....but this plant is a step in the right direction.
Man, I don't know. That's the $64million question, isn't it? Nobody argues that we need to help those less fortunate and nobody argues that we should be turning people away for emergency care. I think that is pretty well established.
What isn't well established is "how much of one's own production should be aimed toward medicine?". We know we all need it. We also know it has to be paid for by someone. So what is the right balance? Surely we don't want someone spending 100% of their income....but we also don't want them spending 0% of their income.
Just speaking personally, I see a whole lot of people being subsidized who might not need to be. It's hard for me to call someone less fortunate when they are obese, have a cable TV bill, cell phone bill, car payments, place to live/roof over the head, food, etc. And I am not talking just about the poor. I know good friends who sit and bitch about how much they are paying for medicine but have no problem paying that monthly payment for the nice SUV. Talk about jacked up priorities!
Surely, there are people who fall between the cracks. But there are also many more people who abuse the system and expect others to pay for their medicine so they can pay for the iphone, nice car, or whatever.
It is no more complex than realizing you are paying for other people. The reason the prices are so high is because a very high percentage of medical costs go unpaid by those the people who receive them. And when I say they go unpaid, I mean the bill simply isn't paid by anyone. Not insurance. Not the state. Nothing. Guess what happens then? You get to pay instead of them in the form of higher prices. Now throw in some bureaucracy and malpractice attorneys and you have a mix that distorts prices in a major way.
This is a high risk post because of the danger of an emotional response. Before we go on, I want to be clear that I am not coming out against your mother or any derivative thereof. I will try to remain objective so please excuse any slight or perceived slight as it is entirely unintentional.
Now let's begin....so your mother, a high medical risk person, is paying less than the cost for the medical insurance she is getting. Meanwhile, someone else is paying more than their cost so they can subsidize your mother. Or did you think your mother could just "get" $2000 coverage for $700? Whether you realize it or admit it, your mother is subsidized by the rest of taxpayers in your state.
I am not saying that's a good or bad thing. I am simply saying that your mother, by your own admission, is utilizing more medical resources than she can afford. The difference between what she CAN pay and what is being CHARGED is payed by taxpayers.
My only point here is that your "thanks" shouldn't be to Obamacare. Your thanks should be directed to your fellow taxpayers who are subsidizing your mother's medical care via Obamacare.
If I were in your chair, I too would think Obamacare is the greatest thing since sliced bread. But like everything, there are always two sides to the story.
Oh of course....it's those Fat Cat CxO's again! Dang them!
It has nothing to do with regulations or future regulations, right? Nope. And it has nothing to do with subsidizing other people's medical needs? Nope. And it has nothing to do with the high cost of malpractice insurance? Nope. And it has nothing to do with the 1000's of inputs that go into the "medical market"? Nope. According to you, it's just the CxO salaries that moved the needle 20%.
Sir, I think you should apply for a MacArthur Foundation award. You have it figured out and are truly a genius. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Are you serious?
There are so many legitimate questions that were raised by Obamacare that I will leave it to you to educate yourself on the issues. Hint: check the constitutional court case first.
I don't care which side you are on but to pretend there are no legitimate legal questions raised by this new law is just deluding yourself.
Funny, if it's so obvious, then why don't they realize it already? Why does it take someone like you to help them "understand"? Could it be....perhaps....that they are not as dumb as you think they are?
For the things you listed, you basically used the same argument as unions use against business. "No really...we are GOOD for you. You should want us. We are an overall net positive effect for the business". If that was true, then there wouldn't be any problem and the two sides would reach agreement and peace. However, as any reasonable person watching will tell you.....that is the opposite of reality.
The reality is that there is vehement disagreement about high taxes, social programs, and union precisely because it is not clear whether they are positive or negative.
You say it's settled. The other 50% say it's not.
The Democrats have done plenty of nasty stuff, to be sure, but I honestly can't think of anything they've done lately, all on their own, that's so blatantly anti-American as this.
I'll take a shot: Have you heard of Obamacare?
When you are so sure "your side" is right, that usually means it's time to look in the mirror. It reveals more about yourself than it does anything else....
It also applies to any medical records your employer is privy to. Don't forget that when you consider the implications of patient's right to access.
Any employer who is not paying attention to HIPAA is going to (eventually) get in trouble. It's not just healthcare providers and doctors who have to worry about it. It's anyone who handles medical records and/or medical information. Drug test results, results of pre-employment physicals, DOT testing results, etc, etc. All of these are HIPAA related between you and your employer.
I suspect the lawyers are just waiting for a few test cases to trickle through before they open up the floodgates. This CIGNET case is pretty egregious but there will be other cases that will be more nuanced.
You do realize that publicly traded companies aren't "public" like the government, right?
Despite the misnomer, publicly traded companies are still private entities owned by individuals (or groups of individuals). What the heck gives you the right to see ANYTHING they are doing, aside from normal regulatory compliance?
Enron didn't CREATE this market not did they invent the business model.
/. always seems to miss. Your previous post is a good example of that.
The GOVERNMENT created the business model. Enron just happened to be ONE of the companies that participated in that business model. You can hate Enron for all the illegal stuff they did (that's fair) but you hating them because they "thought up the business" or because it's their "business model" is just....well....naive.
I get tired of these "tail wagging the dog" statements like you just made. No private company, even Enron, can force a business model. Business models are created, in part, because of the very regulations the government prescribes. Regulation is tough to get right but one thing you can be sure of: all businesses, Enron or otherwise, will react to new regulations and will do anything they can within the law to profit from the same regulations.
You see, the regs cut both ways. That's the part the
The telecoms promised us fiber optic networks nationwide in 1993. They charged us for it, and never built it.
Citation needed
Ok Slashdot, let's hear the cynical posts! C'mon trolls...bring the best you have.
If you can find something cynical here, then I truly pity you.
Disband corporations? Seriously? I want some of whatever you are smoking.
Good god man, get some perspective.
You clearly have no idea what makes the USA work and apparently, you don't understand why the USA is a superpower. Hint: our corporations are partly responsible.
I realize it is not a perfect system. Nobody has ever claimed it is. But it's the best one we know of. Out of curiosity, what the heck would you replace corporations with?
I think that pretty much sums things up.
I don't know the man personally, but I would be shocked and surprised if he is advocating or actively working towards "working people so hard they start killing themselves". Way to take an abnormal event and try to make it seem as if that is the norm. As we know from TFA, it is not the norm.
...and by the way, in case you haven't noticed -- we aren't emulating China. They are emulating us. Or did you miss that whole transition to capitalism/industrialization thing that's been going on for the last 25 years?
In sum, I guess I don't understand why you got modded up. Is it just because it feels good to say "If X is right, then I'd rather be wrong than right"? Yea, ok. Brownie points for you.
or....
Perhaps the US does have too many laws and lawyers. Perhaps it is more competitive to produce products somewhere else. Perhaps US workers think they are more valuable than they really are (so they erect laws to "enforce" that value). Did you ever consider that maybe it's not exploitation he is after but a better sense of balance? The world is not black and white. This is not a "workers of the world unite" vs "the evil business owners". You do recognize there is a middle ground, don't you?
This guy is telling you exactly what his risk/reward calculation is and you only look at one side of the equation.
Instead of responding with cries of exploitation, as yourself this: could he be right?
Unfortunately, capitalists have learned that genuinely fixing problems is rarely the way to maximize their power. Far better to sell a more-or-less ineffective "solution" like the security-industrial complex's "War on Terror" or drug cocktails for AIDS or subsidized "food aid" for povery and hunger. Insert your corporation into one of those cash torrents and you will be in a position of power for decades to come.
....except there is this little thing called "competition" that drives capitalists towards producing a better product. If they don't, they run the risk of someone else displacing them. If they purposely hold back (for any reason) then they place their precious "power" at risk. Don't you get it? In a capitalist economy, the very power you speak of comes from providing the most value. And you provide the most value by continually innovating more than the other competitors in your field (and also doing lots of other things correctly).
I can't believe you went through all of that and then failed to point out the competitive influence angle. That's just one of many beauties found in capitalism - and you just pretend it isn't even there. As if there is some grand conspiracy amongst capitalists to produce sub-par items for the stupid, unsuspecting public......c'mon, get a grip. Companies produce what the market demands. Otherwise, they can't get that power you speak of.
So it's a fee, not a tax. Actually, it's a "business privilege" license. Whatever that is.
Simple solution: quit calling your hobby a business and you won't have to pay the fee for being a business. Nobody is restricting what she can/can't do -- we are only restricting how she "categorizes" her activities for the purposes of accounting and tax preparation.
If, on the other hand, she wants to make this into her business then she needs to pay the relevant taxes, fees, and licensing required to be "in business". If you don't like the taxes, fees, and requirements of being "in business" then use your vote to change things.
I am not clear on what the issue is here. All business have this type of bullshit. Why is this one special? Oh wait, I'm not new here --- this must be Web 3.0.
Ok, now I get where you are coming from....
We are nowhere near 1800 ppl. Try 25. That's why we keep a firm on retainer for advice. That's a much cheaper option than keeping a 6-figure attorney on staff. My god, just the thought of having an attorney on staff makes me shudder!
In my line of work, attorneys are the sales stoppage department.
No, we don't. Is that a serious question? Most companies don't have attorneys on staff. The only people in business who would want attorneys around all the time are other attorneys...
But notices have no legal meaning in the workplace. You can send all the notices you want and they have no legal muscle until you actually leave or the employer "accepts" your offer of resignation under whatever terms you all agreed to.
Just saying "I will leave in 2 weeks" has no legal meaning unless the company responds with "ok, we accept and agree to pay you for the two weeks you plan to work". Until the employer accepts all you have done is advertise that you no longer want to work there. If the employer does not accept, you still retain the right to walk out the door and quit right then and there.
Employment law does not prevent them from firing you on the spot and it does not prevent them from rejecting the terms of your resignation (ie: I work for 2 more weeks, you pay me 2 weeks pay). There is no legal requirement for an employer to "accept" your resignation and the terms you dictate.
If there was a legal requirement for employers, I'd just say I am resigning effective Feb 2022 and you Mr employer have to pay me until then.
Listen, there is no 2 weeks notice that has any meaning from an employee unless the employer accepts those terms. You can offer 2 weeks all you want but it has no meaning until the employer says "agreed". Then and only then is it a contract.
The alternative is that the employer rejects your offer, fires you, and you get nothing. There is nothing in place to prevent that from happening. Again, just because you offer it doesn't mean the employer has to accept your offer of resignation.
This assertion that just because you offer it, an employer must abide is crazy. It is not supported by law or precedence and I don't understand why so many slashdotters miss this. It should be obvious by now that employers can hire/fire at-will in the USA and there are only a few instances where that isn't the case (race, sex, color, sexual preference, etc)