For those of you who made it to the final paragraph where they finally explain why Nintendo is "gouging" less than other game makers, it turns this whole story into a big "so what?"
The report says the reason why Nintendo's revenue goals for its entire smartphone-gaming sector are considered modest compared to other large Japanese publishers may be "because its smartphone games are positioned less to make oodles of cash and more to raise awareness of Nintendo's IP (which Nintendo will soon leverage with theme park attractions and a feature-length film)."
So for Nintendo, the benefit flowing from the game is both its own revenue stream and what amounts to advertising for other revenue streams. For all but a handful of game makers, the game itself is the only revenue stream they're going to have.
A less dangerous, but added cost, route would be to test the recipient's immune titer after they've finished the vaccination course and determine if they need more boosters.
I think this is just about the first truly productive comment I've seen in this discussion (and many others like it). If the ongoing risk to vaccinated people is really so dire that folks around here are getting enthusiastically modded up for saying people who choose not to vaccinate their kids should be jailed/ostracized, that their children should be yanked, etc., why in the world would we NOT throw a bit of money at the problem first before taking one more [gigantic] step toward a police state?
Literally came here to say, "I can't wait for the usual cynics to come out of the bushes and moan about how the police must be lying that they actually want to reduce collisions because We All Know it's about the money" -- and lo and behold you were already here.
Here, there are not yet any actual effects. At this juncture they're just receiving initial letters saying that the council suspects they're falsely claiming a tax credit, and have an opportunity to show evidence to the contrary -- evidence which a human then would have to review. I highly doubt that would fall under the above definition.
Someone who was very careful about what they say and do, someone concerned about risk, would not have built SpaceX and Tesla into what they are, in such a short time. Musk is not a careful person, he's a daredevil.
It's fine and dandy for him to be a daredevil firing rockets into space.
It's not OK at all for him to be a daredevil filling the highways where my family drives with cars designed and marketed to lull their drivers into a false sense of security.
The real-world analogy would be more like keeping track of someone's location and activities who entered your retail store, then using/selling that data as they see fit. People may not like that, but I don't think there's any serious theory that it would be illegal. (Let's ignore for a moment the places in that retail store where you'd have a reasonable expectation of privacy like changing rooms, since that's outside the scope of the submitter's doe-eyed question.)
In the same way, you visit someone's website, you play by their rules. This doesn't seem particularly complicated or surprising.
I point the difference in crime labels because once you count the drug offenders in prison for "drug trafficking" vs. "Possession", you're looking at over 50% of the incarcerated population.
Otherwise known as 15%, but hey, what's a 200+% error band amongst friends? Small wonder you posted anon.
any American who read a newspaper even just once a week for a year would already know it isn't true. . . . you've been exposed to the information numerous times, and also you could look it up and check right now.
Predictably, your claim "it's everywhere" is accompanied by precisely zero examples. I'm sure you'll come up with some kind of very clever excuse why you didn't, but the reality is it's because there's nothing to provide: The Washington Post fact checker rated that sort of claim as four Pinnochios, and extensively explained why. I know it can be scary to click on links outside your echo chamber, so I'll even summarize it for you: Less than 3.5% of state and less than 0.5% of federal prisoners are incarcerated due to drug possession. The percentage of those incarcerated for possession of recreational quantities would of course be smaller (likely much smaller), and the percentage incarcerated for "a long time" for recreational quantities would be smaller still, though even the full-scale numbers demonstrate my point clearly enough. Thanks for playing.
While their social credit system may be abused, so is the US legal system, e.g. ones who use drug are jailed for long time, whereas the drug users in China may just be banned from flying airplanes and taking high-speed trains.
You're conflating drug users with drug dealers. The U.S. generally doesn't imprison people at all for possessing recreational quantities of drugs, much less for a "long time."
... people who break the law or don't pay dept are low value and, depending, denied employment, guns, voting rights, incarcerated, evicted, fined, denied credit, denied loans...
So people who don't pay debt have trouble getting more credit. Shocking, that. The fact that some employers have the temerity to decide not to take on risk by hiring convicted felons into positions of responsibility is even more outrageous.
Weeding out all those silly instances, you're left suggesting that not being able to vote and buy guns because you're a convicted felon is on some level of moral equivalence with not being able to pull cash out of your pocket and buy a travel ticket because someone overheard you saying something negative about the government. That's stretching the words "similar system" to the breaking point.
That place is as likely to deliver an unbiased assessment of whatever went on in Georgetown Texas as mice re likely to give an unbiased assessment of cats.
Right. As opposed to the multitude of climate changeresearchorganizations of the subject paper's authors, who are pure as the driven snow and certainly are not subject to bias in the direction of the dollars funding them.
Note that the focus of the paper appears to be a possible explanation for extreme temperature changes in the past, not that there's a credible chance of this happening any time in the near future.
Looking at multipledescriptions of how Scroll will work, they explicitly say the Scroll subscription fee won't cover individual news site paywalls -- you'll also have to have a subscription to the underlying site to get unlimited (or, in some cases, any) articles.
So unless I'm missing something, the only apparent benefit from my $5/month to Scroll is to get ad-free content (and, I suppose, less anti-adblocker cat and mouse).
Whoever wrote the headline: Would you like some help distinguishing between "she" and "her" the person, and "they" the business cards?
When Chloe Condon, a newly hired Microsoft cloud evangelist, ordered new business cards, she avoided the standard corporate look and instead went with Clippy-themed cards and tweeted them out... They've got a picture of Clippy on the front and on the back they say, "It looks like you are trying to get in touch with Chloe," with her contact info listed below...
Two programming articles in a row? How in the world am I to satisfy my deep inner thirst for bleeding-edge news about global warming, basic income, the Model 3, and Ajit Pai?
Keep this up and I'm going to have to go back to HuffPost. Sad!
You're focused on throughput to the exclusion of latency. The latter makes a big difference, particularly for things like web browsing where it can take dozens of transactions before a page can be fully displayed.
Because if USPS Inc. is not a person, then neither are any of the other "Companies are People too" companies
Sorry, that's not on the table here (and for reasons having nothing to do with politics, as you later infer).
The petitioner's primary argument is that the government itself acknowledges it is not a "person" because the following definition of "person" in 1 U.S.C. Section 1 does not include governmental agencies:
“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise . . . the words ‘person’ and ‘whoever’ include corporations,companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.”
The Supreme Court isn't being asked to read any of the long list of non-human entities out of this statute, and there's no basis for them to do so in any event.
I think it would fail any test of novelty or newness.
It did. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board held the claims unpatentable after the USPS challenged them, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed. That's why the case is now at the Supreme Court.
Since CC fees vary, fairly wildly, offering a set discount either means that some cards are still going to cost the retailer more than others. The best the retailer can hope for is an average.
This seems like an example of letting the perfect be the enemy of the adequate. The retail world is full of uncertainties that marginally affect the retailer's bottom line. And in any event, a retailer that moves any significant sort of volume will have enough payment data to be able to calculate that average fairly precisely (and then offer a slightly smaller cash discount to cover fluctuations and probably still come out ahead).
Can't be done. Visa, Mastercard, and Amex all have clauses forbidding those cash discounts, which can cause a merchant's account to be pulled.
This is a well-worn urban myth. Merchants absolutely can and do offer discounts for paying with cash -- what they can't do is impose a surcharge for paying with a card. Here's a recent article where Visa explains the difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Smart Slab, a lightweight concrete slab with 3D-printed sand formwork that's less than half the weight of a conventional concrete slab
Typically cutting corners like that ends like this.
But... but... they're 3D printing it this time!!!1
For those of you who made it to the final paragraph where they finally explain why Nintendo is "gouging" less than other game makers, it turns this whole story into a big "so what?"
The report says the reason why Nintendo's revenue goals for its entire smartphone-gaming sector are considered modest compared to other large Japanese publishers may be "because its smartphone games are positioned less to make oodles of cash and more to raise awareness of Nintendo's IP (which Nintendo will soon leverage with theme park attractions and a feature-length film)."
So for Nintendo, the benefit flowing from the game is both its own revenue stream and what amounts to advertising for other revenue streams. For all but a handful of game makers, the game itself is the only revenue stream they're going to have.
A less dangerous, but added cost, route would be to test the recipient's immune titer after they've finished the vaccination course and determine if they need more boosters.
I think this is just about the first truly productive comment I've seen in this discussion (and many others like it). If the ongoing risk to vaccinated people is really so dire that folks around here are getting enthusiastically modded up for saying people who choose not to vaccinate their kids should be jailed/ostracized, that their children should be yanked, etc., why in the world would we NOT throw a bit of money at the problem first before taking one more [gigantic] step toward a police state?
Literally came here to say, "I can't wait for the usual cynics to come out of the bushes and moan about how the police must be lying that they actually want to reduce collisions because We All Know it's about the money" -- and lo and behold you were already here.
The GDPR allows for decisions made by machines to be reviewed by a human on request.
That's limited to decisions "which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her.".
Here, there are not yet any actual effects. At this juncture they're just receiving initial letters saying that the council suspects they're falsely claiming a tax credit, and have an opportunity to show evidence to the contrary -- evidence which a human then would have to review. I highly doubt that would fall under the above definition.
Someone who was very careful about what they say and do, someone concerned about risk, would not have built SpaceX and Tesla into what they are, in such a short time. Musk is not a careful person, he's a daredevil.
It's fine and dandy for him to be a daredevil firing rockets into space.
It's not OK at all for him to be a daredevil filling the highways where my family drives with cars designed and marketed to lull their drivers into a false sense of security.
The real-world analogy would be more like keeping track of someone's location and activities who entered your retail store, then using/selling that data as they see fit. People may not like that, but I don't think there's any serious theory that it would be illegal. (Let's ignore for a moment the places in that retail store where you'd have a reasonable expectation of privacy like changing rooms, since that's outside the scope of the submitter's doe-eyed question.)
In the same way, you visit someone's website, you play by their rules. This doesn't seem particularly complicated or surprising.
I point the difference in crime labels because once you count the drug offenders in prison for "drug trafficking" vs. "Possession", you're looking at over 50% of the incarcerated population.
Otherwise known as 15%, but hey, what's a 200+% error band amongst friends? Small wonder you posted anon.
Ah, then you clearly have none. Happy trails.
any American who read a newspaper even just once a week for a year would already know it isn't true. . . . you've been exposed to the information numerous times, and also you could look it up and check right now.
Predictably, your claim "it's everywhere" is accompanied by precisely zero examples. I'm sure you'll come up with some kind of very clever excuse why you didn't, but the reality is it's because there's nothing to provide: The Washington Post fact checker rated that sort of claim as four Pinnochios, and extensively explained why. I know it can be scary to click on links outside your echo chamber, so I'll even summarize it for you: Less than 3.5% of state and less than 0.5% of federal prisoners are incarcerated due to drug possession. The percentage of those incarcerated for possession of recreational quantities would of course be smaller (likely much smaller), and the percentage incarcerated for "a long time" for recreational quantities would be smaller still, though even the full-scale numbers demonstrate my point clearly enough. Thanks for playing.
That's incredibly ignorant.
Et tu, my friend. "Everybody knows" doesn't count here.
You're going to have to read the article
Did that, actually. Not much more to it than is pasted in the summary. Feel free to share your point if you have one.
While their social credit system may be abused, so is the US legal system, e.g. ones who use drug are jailed for long time, whereas the drug users in China may just be banned from flying airplanes and taking high-speed trains.
You're conflating drug users with drug dealers. The U.S. generally doesn't imprison people at all for possessing recreational quantities of drugs, much less for a "long time."
... people who break the law or don't pay dept are low value and, depending, denied employment, guns, voting rights, incarcerated, evicted, fined, denied credit, denied loans ...
So people who don't pay debt have trouble getting more credit. Shocking, that. The fact that some employers have the temerity to decide not to take on risk by hiring convicted felons into positions of responsibility is even more outrageous.
Weeding out all those silly instances, you're left suggesting that not being able to vote and buy guns because you're a convicted felon is on some level of moral equivalence with not being able to pull cash out of your pocket and buy a travel ticket because someone overheard you saying something negative about the government. That's stretching the words "similar system" to the breaking point.
That place is as likely to deliver an unbiased assessment of whatever went on in Georgetown Texas as mice re likely to give an unbiased assessment of cats.
Right. As opposed to the multitude of climate change research organizations of the subject paper's authors, who are pure as the driven snow and certainly are not subject to bias in the direction of the dollars funding them.
The ad hominem gets old after a while.
The publisher made it freely available -- a pleasant rarity.
Note that the focus of the paper appears to be a possible explanation for extreme temperature changes in the past, not that there's a credible chance of this happening any time in the near future.
Looking at multiple descriptions of how Scroll will work, they explicitly say the Scroll subscription fee won't cover individual news site paywalls -- you'll also have to have a subscription to the underlying site to get unlimited (or, in some cases, any) articles.
So unless I'm missing something, the only apparent benefit from my $5/month to Scroll is to get ad-free content (and, I suppose, less anti-adblocker cat and mouse).
Whoever wrote the headline: Would you like some help distinguishing between "she" and "her" the person, and "they" the business cards?
When Chloe Condon, a newly hired Microsoft cloud evangelist, ordered new business cards, she avoided the standard corporate look and instead went with Clippy-themed cards and tweeted them out... They've got a picture of Clippy on the front and on the back they say, "It looks like you are trying to get in touch with Chloe," with her contact info listed below...
Two programming articles in a row? How in the world am I to satisfy my deep inner thirst for bleeding-edge news about global warming, basic income, the Model 3, and Ajit Pai?
Keep this up and I'm going to have to go back to HuffPost. Sad!
You're focused on throughput to the exclusion of latency. The latter makes a big difference, particularly for things like web browsing where it can take dozens of transactions before a page can be fully displayed.
Work contracts to fit into the time we give it.
Because if USPS Inc. is not a person, then neither are any of the other "Companies are People too" companies
Sorry, that's not on the table here (and for reasons having nothing to do with politics, as you later infer).
The petitioner's primary argument is that the government itself acknowledges it is not a "person" because the following definition of "person" in 1 U.S.C. Section 1 does not include governmental agencies:
“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise . . . the words ‘person’ and ‘whoever’ include corporations,companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies , as well as individuals.”
The Supreme Court isn't being asked to read any of the long list of non-human entities out of this statute, and there's no basis for them to do so in any event.
I think it would fail any test of novelty or newness.
It did. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board held the claims unpatentable after the USPS challenged them, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed. That's why the case is now at the Supreme Court.
Since CC fees vary, fairly wildly, offering a set discount either means that some cards are still going to cost the retailer more than others. The best the retailer can hope for is an average.
This seems like an example of letting the perfect be the enemy of the adequate. The retail world is full of uncertainties that marginally affect the retailer's bottom line. And in any event, a retailer that moves any significant sort of volume will have enough payment data to be able to calculate that average fairly precisely (and then offer a slightly smaller cash discount to cover fluctuations and probably still come out ahead).
Can't be done. Visa, Mastercard, and Amex all have clauses forbidding those cash discounts, which can cause a merchant's account to be pulled.
This is a well-worn urban myth. Merchants absolutely can and do offer discounts for paying with cash -- what they can't do is impose a surcharge for paying with a card. Here's a recent article where Visa explains the difference.