What is it called when, instead of every individual consumer of a product paying for what they use, everyone is forced to pay for it whether they use it or not? What is it called when the citizenry is asked to collectively pay for something that they may or may not use, or that a small percentage of users use the majority portion of that resource?
People trying to sell me things are real quick to remove stickers when I tell them I have a $1000/day advertising fee that they must agree to before I'll buy something with stickers on it. It works especially well with cars. Those dealer advertising stickers just fly right off somehow.
There's nothing stopping you from claiming that you were the original inventor, or claiming that you used to hold a patent. Patent Law nevertheless prohibits you stamping your product with an invalid patent number because it implies that the product is protected by a patent when it is not.
My Pathfinder is rated at 15 city and 18 highway, but I get 23-25 on the highway and 18-20 in town.
Sometimes I think that performance cars and SUVs are rated artificially lower on purpose to discourage their sales - more social engineering by our government.
Seriously, can we not expect people to know what numbers are bigger than others now?
If the "average" citizen does not know if 25 is bigger than 31, we have serious problems that we should be working on rather than wasting resources coming up with a letter-based grading system for fuel economy.
Also, I don't want to know if my car gets an "A" or a "C." I want to know how far I can drive on a gallon of gas. "A" does not tell me that. "31 MPG" does tell me what I want to know.
Yes, let's dumb everything down for the LCD some more.
I didn't think it was. Although, cops won't think twice about confiscating your money if you have more than a couple hundred bucks on you. They'll just suspect you of being a drug dealer and take it, since there is no shortage of unconstitutional drug law to back them up.
Again, we're going back to the distinction between a transaction that takes place partially in the US, and one that takes place completely outside the US.
Just because a foreign business has an entity in the US does not mean the sum total of that company's worldwide operations is under US regulation. I would have to think that some part of that company's US operations would have to be involved in the transaction. I also don't see how owning assets in the US puts your activities outside the US under US Law.
Again, if I open an office in India, I don't have to pay the workers there US minimum wage. US Labor Law does not apply to my operations in India, even though I am a US company.
That company should (would?) only be bound by US Law inside the United States, right? If I open an office in Mumbai, I do not have to pay those workers US minimum wage, right? So, what is the logic behind applying US legal standards to a transaction that took place between two non-US entities entirely outside of the United States?
I mean, I am sure our government would just LOVE to have that capability, but I don't see how any reasonable planet of people could allow country A to enforce its laws against parties B and C who are doing normal business completely outside the geographic confines of country A. But, maybe I'm being idealistic. We did, after all, create the UN just for the purpose of allowing one country to dictate the laws of another.
I don't think the United States can "embargo" a Swedish company from selling things to another country. I am also not sure it's against the law in Iran for the government to intercept any kind of communication. Don't they pretty much have totalitarian rule over there? I thought the government could pretty much do whatever it wanted?
I don't really understand this case. US Law does not apply in Iran, nor does it apply in Sweden (unless you're an American citizen, in which case you can be charged with breaking US law in another country).
It is not a fee on blogs. It is requiring for-profit blogs to, you know, follow the law and obtain a business privilege tax to operate within the city.
That's about the size of it. This is why I never buy brand name anything if I can avoid it. Too many companies think they are just renting you their hardware, that they still own it, and that they can presume to disable it if they think you are not using it the way they want you to.
We insist on at least 30 micro-inches of gold plating on all connectors and cables we specify for our distributed industrial control platform. This protects the interior nickel/tin material from corrosion.
Standard connectors typically have 6 micro-inches of plating. Most manufacturers (I know Pulse, Imerial, and ERNI do) offer variations up to 50 micro-inches. 6 is insufficient for corrosive atmospheres because pitting and vibration can both expose the underlying metals. 30 is better, but 50 is even better.
No, the term "up to" is to account for the fact that most people are litigious assholes that will sue the moment they get 1bps less than the "advertised" speed without it.
The average consumer (and about half of Slashdot, it seems) is ignorant of the technical limitations involved with providing network access.
Complaining about "up to" speeds is akin to suing Netgear because you don't get exactly 100Mbps between your laptop and your file server when copying your files. There are several other factors than simply the line rate that need to be considered, such as whether the consumer is using a router that can handle the throughput (and I imagine most don't because they don't want to pay for it).
Slashdot Mirror
Plants
Incandescent Lighting
Comfortable Chairs
Art on the walls
More Plants
What is it called when, instead of every individual consumer of a product paying for what they use, everyone is forced to pay for it whether they use it or not? What is it called when the citizenry is asked to collectively pay for something that they may or may not use, or that a small percentage of users use the majority portion of that resource?
I believe that would be "socialized music."
It's not like this is fantastic new technology or anything, just something Facebook should have been offering since the beginning.
People trying to sell me things are real quick to remove stickers when I tell them I have a $1000/day advertising fee that they must agree to before I'll buy something with stickers on it. It works especially well with cars. Those dealer advertising stickers just fly right off somehow.
There's nothing stopping you from claiming that you were the original inventor, or claiming that you used to hold a patent. Patent Law nevertheless prohibits you stamping your product with an invalid patent number because it implies that the product is protected by a patent when it is not.
My Pathfinder is rated at 15 city and 18 highway, but I get 23-25 on the highway and 18-20 in town.
Sometimes I think that performance cars and SUVs are rated artificially lower on purpose to discourage their sales - more social engineering by our government.
Seriously, can we not expect people to know what numbers are bigger than others now?
If the "average" citizen does not know if 25 is bigger than 31, we have serious problems that we should be working on rather than wasting resources coming up with a letter-based grading system for fuel economy.
Also, I don't want to know if my car gets an "A" or a "C." I want to know how far I can drive on a gallon of gas. "A" does not tell me that. "31 MPG" does tell me what I want to know.
Yes, let's dumb everything down for the LCD some more.
Go find a big chuck of uranium floating around out there and put the energy debate to bed once and for all.
A vehicle that can carry 4 people, drive like a car, and take off and fly...
Why not just put wheels on a Huey?
"However, it is also substantially lighter than air"
I promise you that 1 ton of standard air weighs exactly the same as 1 ton of pure hydrogen gas.
I didn't think it was. Although, cops won't think twice about confiscating your money if you have more than a couple hundred bucks on you. They'll just suspect you of being a drug dealer and take it, since there is no shortage of unconstitutional drug law to back them up.
I'll take a 6MP sensor over a 120MP sensor, in the same sensor size, any day of the week.
120MP won't be that useful if you have to be aimed at the Sun to pick up any light.
Again, we're going back to the distinction between a transaction that takes place partially in the US, and one that takes place completely outside the US.
Just because a foreign business has an entity in the US does not mean the sum total of that company's worldwide operations is under US regulation. I would have to think that some part of that company's US operations would have to be involved in the transaction. I also don't see how owning assets in the US puts your activities outside the US under US Law.
Again, if I open an office in India, I don't have to pay the workers there US minimum wage. US Labor Law does not apply to my operations in India, even though I am a US company.
Why is this situation any different than that?
That company should (would?) only be bound by US Law inside the United States, right? If I open an office in Mumbai, I do not have to pay those workers US minimum wage, right? So, what is the logic behind applying US legal standards to a transaction that took place between two non-US entities entirely outside of the United States?
I mean, I am sure our government would just LOVE to have that capability, but I don't see how any reasonable planet of people could allow country A to enforce its laws against parties B and C who are doing normal business completely outside the geographic confines of country A. But, maybe I'm being idealistic. We did, after all, create the UN just for the purpose of allowing one country to dictate the laws of another.
I don't think the United States can "embargo" a Swedish company from selling things to another country. I am also not sure it's against the law in Iran for the government to intercept any kind of communication. Don't they pretty much have totalitarian rule over there? I thought the government could pretty much do whatever it wanted?
I don't really understand this case. US Law does not apply in Iran, nor does it apply in Sweden (unless you're an American citizen, in which case you can be charged with breaking US law in another country).
I think we need more details.
I'll see your top-end perimeter and raise you a Schuylkill Expressway at US-1.
walterbyrd: RTFA much?
It is not a fee on blogs. It is requiring for-profit blogs to, you know, follow the law and obtain a business privilege tax to operate within the city.
Language was evolving? Doesn't evolution sort of imply improvement? I fail to see how Ebonics is an improvement over its base language.
.... it's a Space Apple.
That's about the size of it. This is why I never buy brand name anything if I can avoid it. Too many companies think they are just renting you their hardware, that they still own it, and that they can presume to disable it if they think you are not using it the way they want you to.
Fuck them.
Fuck them right in the ear.
Whether it's 1 in 95,000 or 1 in 13, reasonable doubt exists.
1 in 95,000 is still 3,157 possible people just in the US.
"but destruction of all copies that violate copyright (thus, wiping all Android devices)"
That has to make you wonder what role Apple might be playing in this... perhaps putting Oracle up to it in some way...
We insist on at least 30 micro-inches of gold plating on all connectors and cables we specify for our distributed industrial control platform. This protects the interior nickel/tin material from corrosion.
Standard connectors typically have 6 micro-inches of plating. Most manufacturers (I know Pulse, Imerial, and ERNI do) offer variations up to 50 micro-inches. 6 is insufficient for corrosive atmospheres because pitting and vibration can both expose the underlying metals. 30 is better, but 50 is even better.
I tried... tried and failed...
No, the term "up to" is to account for the fact that most people are litigious assholes that will sue the moment they get 1bps less than the "advertised" speed without it.
The average consumer (and about half of Slashdot, it seems) is ignorant of the technical limitations involved with providing network access.
Complaining about "up to" speeds is akin to suing Netgear because you don't get exactly 100Mbps between your laptop and your file server when copying your files. There are several other factors than simply the line rate that need to be considered, such as whether the consumer is using a router that can handle the throughput (and I imagine most don't because they don't want to pay for it).