This is BETTER for the musician because there are less, to no, middlemen between the musician and the money.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But shouldn't the musicians be able to decide whether they want to be part of it or not, without being threatened with delisting if they don't want to participate in the new service?
This is typical 1000-pound gorilla bullying tactics, just like they impose on every website on the Internet. If you don't play by Google's rules, you won't be seen on Google searches. It works because they're the 1000-pound search gorilla of the Internet.
I always wondered that with the recidivism rate so high and the cost of housing inmates so high, solving the post-release job/hiring issues by offering employers who employ ex-convicts an annual/monthly tax break for employing them.
We already do that. It's called the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC). Unfortunately, it's suspended right now and Congress is not taking up renewal until the Republicans concede to including a raise to the minimum wage in the same bill. It's sad that actual useful ideas that both sides can agree on always end up with poison pills added from one side or the other.
We need to stop letting sociopaths run our prisons. We should be giving all candidates psychological tests to make sure they're all compassionate people interested in keeping their prisoners safe and rehabilitating them so they can turn their lives around. Of course if you push for this, there are a ton of right-wing lunatics that will embarrass themselves by calling you "a bleeding-heart liberal." It's hard to reform society when many terrible people vote.
Not gonna help. We know now from sociological experiments that the environment turns nearly all the guards into sociopaths. It's a structural problem, not a people problem.
But the most pressing issue with our prison industrial complex is the sheer volume of citizens that are subjected to it. The US has the largest prison population by far in the entire world, both by numbers and proportion of the population. And that is directly attributable to the police-state infrastructure created and perpetuated by the Federal government, just like Weev has stated.
Maybe they aren't exercising.. perhaps they are climbing in to investigate what it is, start to walk/run and just can't get out as they don't yet understand it? I'd buy that more than an animal exercising because it wants to. Sure animals can be very smart.. but I don't see them being vain as some humans, or worried about their figure.
Most animals, mammals anyway, enjoy playing. I think you're right that it's not random physical activity they are after, but rather it's a fun, playful activity, and that's why they are drawn to do it. I can't buy that they don't understand it - rodents are much smarter than people give them credit for.
The squirrels in my back yard really love the bird feeders I put out, which was no big deal until they got greedy with it. They knocked it off the deck and then figured out how to unscrew the feeder from the base to get at the food easier.
The story itself is interesting enough, opening it up to all kinds of hypothesis. Don't ruin it by adding the typically inane verbiage:
"Figuring out why certain strains of mice are more sedentary than others could help shed light on genetic differences between more active and sedentary people."
That was the only way to get the taxpayer-funded grant to pay for the... "study".
>the vast majority of people have little interest in killing random folks.
I'm not so sure that's true regarding the gun-fondlers. When I go to the range, there will be maybe one other person shooting at round targets. The rest are shooting at human silhouettes, basically fantasizing about shooting people. It's really sick.
That's to try to replicate a realistic situation. Other humans are the most dangerous thing you will ever encounter.
Sigh. There is no such thing as an unregulated free market. Unregulated markets are quickly subverted by a few large corporations to prevent competition and stop new corporations from getting a foothold. Can you name me one unregulated free market that has ever existed?
I just get upset when geeks insist on shooting themselves in the foot by decrying the only major internet company that actually FIGHTS requests for data from the government.
Shows how gullible you are to think that Google actual does that. What, you didn't buy the exact same marketing from other companies making the same claim? Even Zuckerburg tried to imply that he did, too.
What about how Google puts your website behind a big red WARNING SECURITY VIOLATOR BAD WEBSITE banner because you linked to an image that was hosted on a site that Google claimed (unilaterally with no hope of appeal) violated their insane TOS?
Don't even get me started about Google's compliance with censorship regimes. Google are Internet bullies. Period.
If this is the case, then civilizations can probably adapt to the havoc this will cause to coastal communities. However, we have evidence from prehistoric warm periods that this could occur over decades. At this point we don’t know long it will take, but we do know that the climate forcing today is much stronger than at any time in over 50 million years.
In a lot of ways, Google continues to be a prime example of a company that "gets it" (when its not pushing failed social networks). Theyre embracing security, encryption, mobile computing, and wearable tech (which is coming whether anyone wants it or not). Im not clear in what sense you could consider them to be "rotting".
The GP was comparing Google too Microsoft. He meant that Microsoft is "rotting", not Google. But was making the point that Google "smells" the same, because while they may not be rotting, they are clearly just as evil.
NASA's Earth Observing System produces a lot of data. NASA's landsat program began in the early 1970s, so the notion of launching satellites to observe the earth's surface is not especially new.
Nope, what's new is ignoring all the observations to further a political agenda.
It does not help that a certain administration has turned NASA, and to a great extent NOAA, into political mouthpieces for the global warming, sorry climate change, sorry climate disruption agenda.
NASA has not been focused on the "space" part in a great many years.
You may think it's flamebait, but it's 100% truth.
The patent law 35 USC is built on the Intellectual Property clause of the Constitution (A1 S8).
You made me spit milk out of my nose I laughed so hard at your contortions. There is no "Intellectual Property" clause in the Constitution, no matter how much you want to make ephemeral ideas some sort of protected "property".
The only powers the Federal government was granted are all in Article 1 Section 8, which includes the following:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
I'd rather pay that than the current "save the highly profitable oil companies" subsidy
The mods on the 2 comments above really demonstrate the hive mind / political / religious attitudes of the typical Slashdot mods.
The saddest part is, even though the/. crowd is generally more intelligent than most other Internet discussion sites, yet even here the lie that "big oil" is getting "subsidies" is not corrected, but repeated (this is how a lie becomes unquestioned by the shitizens).
Basically, Percentage Depletion is the oil and gas industry’s version of a depreciation deduction for its main asset, which is the oil and natural gas in the ground, commonly known as its reserves. Every industry of any kind is allowed a depreciation deduction on its assets under the U.S. Tax Code, but, far from being a “subsidy” for “big oil”, this tax treatment was in fact repealed for all integrated oil companies, i.e., ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, etc., in 1975, and is today available only to independent producers and royalty owners. So repeal of this extremely long-standing, completely common tax treatment would have no effect on “big oil” at all, and would in fact hit small producers and royalty owners harder than anyone else.
Another great example of the specious mischaracterization of these tax treatments is the Manufacturer’s Tax Deduction, more commonly referred to as Section 199. The Section 199 provision was enacted by congress in 2004 as a means of encouraging manufacturers to relocate overseas jobs to the U.S., and is in no way specific to or limited to the oil and gas industry. In fact, the oil & gas industry’s ability to take advantage of this provision has already been singled out for limitation – in 2008, Congress reduced the industry’s deduction under this provision to 2/3rds of what other manufacturing industries are allowed to deduct.
The tax code contains a couple of credits related to the oil and gas industry – the Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Tax Credit, and the Marginal Well Tax Credit. Far from being “subsidies” to “big oil”, these tax credits are used almost exclusively by small to mid-size independent producers who tend to become the operators of marginal oil and gas fields as they age and are divested by the larger companies. The EOR credit was implemented in 1990, and the Marginal Well Credit was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994.
Finally, let’s talk about Intangible Drilling Costs (IDCs), another feature of the federal tax code that will enjoy its’ 100th birthday in 2013. Basically, IDCs are the costs incurred by the oil and gas industry in the drilling of its wells. Since drilling wells is the only means of finding oil and natural gas, IDCs essentially amount to what any other industry would be able to deduct as a part of its cost of goods sold, a concept of accounting and tax law as old as the tax code itself. Independent producers and royalty owners are allowed an election to either a) expense these costs in the year they are incurred, or b) amortize them over a 5-year period. Again, most media reports commonly characterize this as a “subsidy” for “big oil”, as does the Obama Administration. The truth is that “big oil” – the ExxonMobils, Chevrons, Shells and BPs of the world – benefit much less from this tax treatment, it having been severely limited to them by congress in 1986, and again in 1992. And the truth also is that IDCs are not a “subsidy” to anyone engaged in the oil and gas business.
Bottom line: Despite the Administration’s rhetoric that has been so widely repeated in the press, the tax treatments in question are not “subsidies” that are in any way outside of the mainstream of tax treatments commonly available to all U.S. industries. Rather than being mostly a benefit to “big oil”
Except for the part where it degrades slightly every time you play it.
Kids these days...
Back when pretty much everything was on vinyl, everybody already knew about that. Plus the albums were inconvenient because you had to be so careful with the sleeves, the turntable, keeping the needle fresh and clean, etc.
While me and many of my friends settled on was cassette tapes. The first play of the album was used to record the whole thing to a convenient little cassette tape that would play the same hundreds of times, and you could even take it with you to play in the car (or your "walkman"). If the tape got lost or damaged, you can always make another from the vinyl.
This worked so well for so long, I didn't even buy anything on CD until it started getting difficult to find vinyl any more...
Slashdot Mirror
This is BETTER for the musician because there are less, to no, middlemen between the musician and the money.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But shouldn't the musicians be able to decide whether they want to be part of it or not, without being threatened with delisting if they don't want to participate in the new service?
This is typical 1000-pound gorilla bullying tactics, just like they impose on every website on the Internet. If you don't play by Google's rules, you won't be seen on Google searches. It works because they're the 1000-pound search gorilla of the Internet.
Oh. I wonder what weev thinks of the Unabomber
Probably not much, since Kaczynski was a luddite and would have hated bitcoin.
I always wondered that with the recidivism rate so high and the cost of housing inmates so high, solving the post-release job/hiring issues by offering employers who employ ex-convicts an annual/monthly tax break for employing them.
We already do that. It's called the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC). Unfortunately, it's suspended right now and Congress is not taking up renewal until the Republicans concede to including a raise to the minimum wage in the same bill. It's sad that actual useful ideas that both sides can agree on always end up with poison pills added from one side or the other.
We need to stop letting sociopaths run our prisons. We should be giving all candidates psychological tests to make sure they're all compassionate people interested in keeping their prisoners safe and rehabilitating them so they can turn their lives around. Of course if you push for this, there are a ton of right-wing lunatics that will embarrass themselves by calling you "a bleeding-heart liberal." It's hard to reform society when many terrible people vote.
Not gonna help. We know now from sociological experiments that the environment turns nearly all the guards into sociopaths. It's a structural problem, not a people problem.
But the most pressing issue with our prison industrial complex is the sheer volume of citizens that are subjected to it. The US has the largest prison population by far in the entire world, both by numbers and proportion of the population. And that is directly attributable to the police-state infrastructure created and perpetuated by the Federal government, just like Weev has stated.
Well I looked many places and found that after the third go round. Not hard, but not obvious.
I definitely agree that it's pretty buried for such an important function.
Maybe they aren't exercising.. perhaps they are climbing in to investigate what it is, start to walk/run and just can't get out as they don't yet understand it? I'd buy that more than an animal exercising because it wants to. Sure animals can be very smart.. but I don't see them being vain as some humans, or worried about their figure.
Most animals, mammals anyway, enjoy playing. I think you're right that it's not random physical activity they are after, but rather it's a fun, playful activity, and that's why they are drawn to do it. I can't buy that they don't understand it - rodents are much smarter than people give them credit for.
The squirrels in my back yard really love the bird feeders I put out, which was no big deal until they got greedy with it. They knocked it off the deck and then figured out how to unscrew the feeder from the base to get at the food easier.
The story itself is interesting enough, opening it up to all kinds of hypothesis. Don't ruin it by adding the typically inane verbiage:
"Figuring out why certain strains of mice are more sedentary than others could help shed light on genetic differences between more active and sedentary people."
That was the only way to get the taxpayer-funded grant to pay for the ... "study".
Better yet. I just logged in and I cannot find where to change my password.
See where it says "Hi, [yourname]!" at the top left? Click it, then Account Settings -> Personal Information -> "Edit" on the Password line.
There, was that so hard?
I'm pretty sure cops, snitches, and gangster controlling turf are some sort of regulation.
Not the shakedown street I was referring to. But nice try.
>the vast majority of people have little interest in killing random folks. I'm not so sure that's true regarding the gun-fondlers. When I go to the range, there will be maybe one other person shooting at round targets. The rest are shooting at human silhouettes, basically fantasizing about shooting people. It's really sick.
That's to try to replicate a realistic situation. Other humans are the most dangerous thing you will ever encounter.
Sigh. There is no such thing as an unregulated free market. Unregulated markets are quickly subverted by a few large corporations to prevent competition and stop new corporations from getting a foothold. Can you name me one unregulated free market that has ever existed?
"Shakedown Street"
I just get upset when geeks insist on shooting themselves in the foot by decrying the only major internet company that actually FIGHTS requests for data from the government.
Shows how gullible you are to think that Google actual does that. What, you didn't buy the exact same marketing from other companies making the same claim? Even Zuckerburg tried to imply that he did, too.
What about how Google puts your website behind a big red WARNING SECURITY VIOLATOR BAD WEBSITE banner because you linked to an image that was hosted on a site that Google claimed (unilaterally with no hope of appeal) violated their insane TOS?
Don't even get me started about Google's compliance with censorship regimes. Google are Internet bullies. Period.
If this is the case, then civilizations can probably adapt to the havoc this will cause to coastal communities. However, we have evidence from prehistoric warm periods that this could occur over decades. At this point we don’t know long it will take, but we do know that the climate forcing today is much stronger than at any time in over 50 million years.
Assuming you are referring to radiative forcing, all we have are forcing assumptions and climate models that use them, and it appears so far from observations that the assumptions of warming based on forcing are not accurate. A recent paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research demonstrates that global temperatures are entirely independent of radiative forcing.
In a lot of ways, Google continues to be a prime example of a company that "gets it" (when its not pushing failed social networks). Theyre embracing security, encryption, mobile computing, and wearable tech (which is coming whether anyone wants it or not). Im not clear in what sense you could consider them to be "rotting".
The GP was comparing Google too Microsoft. He meant that Microsoft is "rotting", not Google. But was making the point that Google "smells" the same, because while they may not be rotting, they are clearly just as evil.
NASA's Earth Observing System produces a lot of data. NASA's landsat program began in the early 1970s, so the notion of launching satellites to observe the earth's surface is not especially new.
Nope, what's new is ignoring all the observations to further a political agenda.
Translation: I hare science that makes me feel bad.
You wascawy wabbit!
It does not help that a certain administration has turned NASA, and to a great extent NOAA, into political mouthpieces for the global warming, sorry climate change, sorry climate disruption agenda.
NASA has not been focused on the "space" part in a great many years.
You may think it's flamebait, but it's 100% truth.
Why do we need Russia if we now successfully can use Paypal?
Errr... I mean SpaceX.
I still need a list of these big sites that moved from SQL. No MySQL, no Postgre, no Hadoop...
Hadoop uses SQL? I don't think so.
I'm gonna lose it. I actually agree with TapeCutter ... What next, up is down? Rivers and oceans boiling? Mass hysteria? Dogs and cats living together?
The patent law 35 USC is built on the Intellectual Property clause of the Constitution (A1 S8).
You made me spit milk out of my nose I laughed so hard at your contortions. There is no "Intellectual Property" clause in the Constitution, no matter how much you want to make ephemeral ideas some sort of protected "property".
The only powers the Federal government was granted are all in Article 1 Section 8, which includes the following:
Limited times, DAMMIT!
No, its climate change...er, I mean climate disruption. Yeath, that's it.
Climate Chaos. Get with the program!
I'd rather pay that than the current "save the highly profitable oil companies" subsidy
The mods on the 2 comments above really demonstrate the hive mind / political / religious attitudes of the typical Slashdot mods.
The saddest part is, even though the /. crowd is generally more intelligent than most other Internet discussion sites, yet even here the lie that "big oil" is getting "subsidies" is not corrected, but repeated (this is how a lie becomes unquestioned by the shitizens).
Basically, Percentage Depletion is the oil and gas industry’s version of a depreciation deduction for its main asset, which is the oil and natural gas in the ground, commonly known as its reserves. Every industry of any kind is allowed a depreciation deduction on its assets under the U.S. Tax Code, but, far from being a “subsidy” for “big oil”, this tax treatment was in fact repealed for all integrated oil companies, i.e., ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, etc., in 1975, and is today available only to independent producers and royalty owners. So repeal of this extremely long-standing, completely common tax treatment would have no effect on “big oil” at all, and would in fact hit small producers and royalty owners harder than anyone else.
Another great example of the specious mischaracterization of these tax treatments is the Manufacturer’s Tax Deduction, more commonly referred to as Section 199. The Section 199 provision was enacted by congress in 2004 as a means of encouraging manufacturers to relocate overseas jobs to the U.S., and is in no way specific to or limited to the oil and gas industry. In fact, the oil & gas industry’s ability to take advantage of this provision has already been singled out for limitation – in 2008, Congress reduced the industry’s deduction under this provision to 2/3rds of what other manufacturing industries are allowed to deduct.
The tax code contains a couple of credits related to the oil and gas industry – the Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Tax Credit, and the Marginal Well Tax Credit. Far from being “subsidies” to “big oil”, these tax credits are used almost exclusively by small to mid-size independent producers who tend to become the operators of marginal oil and gas fields as they age and are divested by the larger companies. The EOR credit was implemented in 1990, and the Marginal Well Credit was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994.
Finally, let’s talk about Intangible Drilling Costs (IDCs), another feature of the federal tax code that will enjoy its’ 100th birthday in 2013. Basically, IDCs are the costs incurred by the oil and gas industry in the drilling of its wells. Since drilling wells is the only means of finding oil and natural gas, IDCs essentially amount to what any other industry would be able to deduct as a part of its cost of goods sold, a concept of accounting and tax law as old as the tax code itself. Independent producers and royalty owners are allowed an election to either a) expense these costs in the year they are incurred, or b) amortize them over a 5-year period. Again, most media reports commonly characterize this as a “subsidy” for “big oil”, as does the Obama Administration. The truth is that “big oil” – the ExxonMobils, Chevrons, Shells and BPs of the world – benefit much less from this tax treatment, it having been severely limited to them by congress in 1986, and again in 1992. And the truth also is that IDCs are not a “subsidy” to anyone engaged in the oil and gas business.
Bottom line: Despite the Administration’s rhetoric that has been so widely repeated in the press, the tax treatments in question are not “subsidies” that are in any way outside of the mainstream of tax treatments commonly available to all U.S. industries. Rather than being mostly a benefit to “big oil”
As a Social Media Strategy consultant, this information is very useful to me. I will study it closely.
Except for the part where it degrades slightly every time you play it.
Kids these days...
Back when pretty much everything was on vinyl, everybody already knew about that. Plus the albums were inconvenient because you had to be so careful with the sleeves, the turntable, keeping the needle fresh and clean, etc.
While me and many of my friends settled on was cassette tapes. The first play of the album was used to record the whole thing to a convenient little cassette tape that would play the same hundreds of times, and you could even take it with you to play in the car (or your "walkman"). If the tape got lost or damaged, you can always make another from the vinyl.
This worked so well for so long, I didn't even buy anything on CD until it started getting difficult to find vinyl any more...