I don't think Greece is going to do the enforcement. Italy might try but I wouldn't take them serious if I were you (we don't). The rest of the EU though, has good economies, the major dilemma is how much we are willing to pay to save our retarded baby brothers.
They might have been resistant in introducing movies online, but they are selling movies now, and net-neutrality means they can sell them without having to share the income with the ISPs. A lack of net neutrality means the ISPs can blackmail the content providers to get a part of any revenue.
What I want to know is who paid for THIS decision?
I wouldn't call it necessarily paid, but besides citizens, those that benefit from net-neutrality are the content provides, so Google and Hollywood. This is pretty consistent with other issues such as copyright. So the administration might be inconstant in being liberal, but the administration is completely consistent in which side the take in Hollywood vs ISPs
The perception of corruption and corruption are tightly coupled though. Not just in that more corruption leads to more observation of corruption, but also that corruption is caused by people believing the system corrupt already. Notice how politicians accusing other politicians of being corrupt are the most likely to be corrupted themselves? It is human nature to be jealous and therefor a perception of corruption breeds corruption, and anti-corruption politicians will always end up being the most corrupt.
And because the jobs they had attracted fled as soon as the country were in any kind of trouble, making the situation much worse. The problem with tax-tourists is that they are always only visiting.
No it doesn't. Every time I am taxed means I have received new money, so giving a part of it will never add up to significant relative amount, and this tax won't affect you or me in any other way than making our pensions safer.
This tax is so insanely low that unless you are moving millions of dollars around you are not even going to be taxed a dollar. It will absolutely no effect on middle-class people, even upper-class people will not pay more than a few dollars in their lifetime. It is a tax of financial institutions that move billions of dollars around every second.
Most of the work performed by GUI calls is function overhead. Only a few calls in rendering graphics are process-heavy, the rest of the calls are mostly abstraction overhead, this makes being able to optimize the abstractions very important.
We know the solution to the Towers of Hanoi is exponential and thus not polynomial, so if we can prove an NP problem to be equivalent to the Towers of Hanoi problem we know that the NP problem can not be polynomial which means NP !=P
I thought the same thing, but it is not that close really. The setup is very different in that the plates starts mixed, you only have one pin, but you can move a whole stack of plates in one move.
So not the towers of Hanoi, but the comparison does make it easier for me to see why it could take an exponential number of moves.
If you can not write your own data-structures you have no business coding C or C++, the only relevance first-class pointers and pointer arithmetics has is the ability to write your own data-structures. A linked list is the simplest data-structure, if you can not write that, you can not write C.
In that case every $1 phone I have had the last 8 years have been smartphones. I still consider them feature-phones or dumb phones, because those 3rd-party applications were rare and not very convenient.
Having free will does not necessarily conflict with being predictable. If I offer you $1000 with no cave-ats, you are free to refuse it, but almost 100% of people will accept it, but that doesn't mean they don't have a free will.
They even name the act PARASITE now, just to mock you. They know IP is parasitic, and they are telling you they know, and they will still pass it while laughing at you at the same time.
Actually that some pretty high-class douche-baggery.. I am both impressed and slightly scared.
I mostly agree with you, but I hate when people call reducing greenhouse gasses expensive. Of course it is not free, but it is pretty cheap, we are talking about 5-10% GDP or about 2-3 years of growth, so not getting a raise for 2 years, and that is a worst case scenario and doesn't account for new technologies and discoveries.
Odd, most "counterfeit" drugs here are identical to the trademark brands, mostly because they ARE the trademark brands, only imported from countries were they have been sold cheaper, and they are only "counterfeit" due to corrupt laws making re-importing cheaply exported pharmaceuticals illegal.
No. The federal government HAS to charge an interest when it loans money to itself. If they didn't they would be printing money, which would devaluate the dollar. It has nothing to do with making money, it has to do with preserving faith in the dollar by not just printing them.
It is another way of seeing it, but yes it is directly on the consumer, but it operates in practice as a tax on companies.
First assumption is that prices are set in sweet-spots by market forces. When prices are set by any other mechanism than as-seller-demand, the price can not just be altered by the seller. So a tax put on top of the selling-prices will have to be taken off the sellers revenue. To an outsider it will look like the tax is added on top of the base price, but in reality the base prices is forced lower to make the total prices still hit the sweet spot commanded by market-forces.
If the price were set poorly, the tax is paid by the consumer, if the price was set as aggressively as possible, the tax is paid by the company.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think Greece is going to do the enforcement. Italy might try but I wouldn't take them serious if I were you (we don't). The rest of the EU though, has good economies, the major dilemma is how much we are willing to pay to save our retarded baby brothers.
They might have been resistant in introducing movies online, but they are selling movies now, and net-neutrality means they can sell them without having to share the income with the ISPs. A lack of net neutrality means the ISPs can blackmail the content providers to get a part of any revenue.
I wouldn't call it necessarily paid, but besides citizens, those that benefit from net-neutrality are the content provides, so Google and Hollywood. This is pretty consistent with other issues such as copyright. So the administration might be inconstant in being liberal, but the administration is completely consistent in which side the take in Hollywood vs ISPs
The perception of corruption and corruption are tightly coupled though. Not just in that more corruption leads to more observation of corruption, but also that corruption is caused by people believing the system corrupt already. Notice how politicians accusing other politicians of being corrupt are the most likely to be corrupted themselves? It is human nature to be jealous and therefor a perception of corruption breeds corruption, and anti-corruption politicians will always end up being the most corrupt.
And because the jobs they had attracted fled as soon as the country were in any kind of trouble, making the situation much worse. The problem with tax-tourists is that they are always only visiting.
No it doesn't. Every time I am taxed means I have received new money, so giving a part of it will never add up to significant relative amount, and this tax won't affect you or me in any other way than making our pensions safer.
This tax is so insanely low that unless you are moving millions of dollars around you are not even going to be taxed a dollar. It will absolutely no effect on middle-class people, even upper-class people will not pay more than a few dollars in their lifetime. It is a tax of financial institutions that move billions of dollars around every second.
IBM was the hardware manufacturer, it was IBM who lost money when the hardware competitors came in, and MS that benefited.
Most of the work performed by GUI calls is function overhead. Only a few calls in rendering graphics are process-heavy, the rest of the calls are mostly abstraction overhead, this makes being able to optimize the abstractions very important.
We know the solution to the Towers of Hanoi is exponential and thus not polynomial, so if we can prove an NP problem to be equivalent to the Towers of Hanoi problem we know that the NP problem can not be polynomial which means NP !=P
Hmm. This actually means that if you prove this is a reworded version of the Towers of Hanoi, you would have proven N != NP.
I thought the same thing, but it is not that close really. The setup is very different in that the plates starts mixed, you only have one pin, but you can move a whole stack of plates in one move.
So not the towers of Hanoi, but the comparison does make it easier for me to see why it could take an exponential number of moves.
If you can not write your own data-structures you have no business coding C or C++, the only relevance first-class pointers and pointer arithmetics has is the ability to write your own data-structures. A linked list is the simplest data-structure, if you can not write that, you can not write C.
In that case every $1 phone I have had the last 8 years have been smartphones. I still consider them feature-phones or dumb phones, because those 3rd-party applications were rare and not very convenient.
Having free will does not necessarily conflict with being predictable. If I offer you $1000 with no cave-ats, you are free to refuse it, but almost 100% of people will accept it, but that doesn't mean they don't have a free will.
Why use a flying car? I would just catch a pig and use it a flying mount.
They even name the act PARASITE now, just to mock you. They know IP is parasitic, and they are telling you they know, and they will still pass it while laughing at you at the same time.
Actually that some pretty high-class douche-baggery.. I am both impressed and slightly scared.
A flying submarine? ;) You know they are design to withstand several atmospheres of pressure.
I mostly agree with you, but I hate when people call reducing greenhouse gasses expensive. Of course it is not free, but it is pretty cheap, we are talking about 5-10% GDP or about 2-3 years of growth, so not getting a raise for 2 years, and that is a worst case scenario and doesn't account for new technologies and discoveries.
It has a price, but it is not expensive.
You forgot the last part
- Even if I should act, acting wont help, it is too late
I see this more and more often with skeptics if you press them long enough with facts.
No, UK defaming laws are quite strong. Too strong in fact.
Odd, most "counterfeit" drugs here are identical to the trademark brands, mostly because they ARE the trademark brands, only imported from countries were they have been sold cheaper, and they are only "counterfeit" due to corrupt laws making re-importing cheaply exported pharmaceuticals illegal.
No. The federal government HAS to charge an interest when it loans money to itself. If they didn't they would be printing money, which would devaluate the dollar. It has nothing to do with making money, it has to do with preserving faith in the dollar by not just printing them.
It is another way of seeing it, but yes it is directly on the consumer, but it operates in practice as a tax on companies.
First assumption is that prices are set in sweet-spots by market forces. When prices are set by any other mechanism than as-seller-demand, the price can not just be altered by the seller. So a tax put on top of the selling-prices will have to be taken off the sellers revenue. To an outsider it will look like the tax is added on top of the base price, but in reality the base prices is forced lower to make the total prices still hit the sweet spot commanded by market-forces.
If the price were set poorly, the tax is paid by the consumer, if the price was set as aggressively as possible, the tax is paid by the company.
I think that is how it used to be. The Sky monopoly on English football has already been broken up once before.