Do you not understand that if the number of people growing food becomes too low to grow enough food, that prices will skyrocket and it will become immensely profitable to be a farmer?
Farmers need tractors. Farmers need doctors and veterinarians. Don't give me BS about how I need them, as if that were a unique situation.
Market forces tend to drive prices toward reasonable levels in the absence of government coercion.
You're not familiar with rural life. If you live on your own farm, your food costs are (mostly) covered.
Rural building costs are astonishingly lower than city. As a rule of thumb, 2/3 of the cost of a house is labor. Rural labor is non-union, often unregulated, and much cheaper. (Especially if it's your labor).
Very importantly, the $40100-$50900 figure is current income, and the $94400-$189000 is current estimated home price. If the family moved into the house 20 years ago, the dollar cost was half that amount and that is what they're now paying interest on.
There are places you can't get mail delivery. It's not uncommon for the USPS to insist you come into town for your mail, or if not that, to a major road where a bunch of mailboxes are grouped together.
Have you never heard the term "court costs"? It's not always the case, but there are times that you have to pay for the costs of a trial, including certain types of witnesses. A right to a trial is not a right to a free trial.
It may not have always been the case, but nowadays many communities are very careful about what roads they're going to build, precisely because they're expensive and have to be maintained. I live 1/10 mile beyond the end of pavement, and the town has refused to issue building permits further up the road precisely because they'd have to maintain the road.
In flat country, the cost of an unpaved road is close to zero. Repeatedly run a vehicle over the same path, and bingo! you've got a road.
That something is already done does not make it right or sensible. Without evaluation of costs, benefits, and alternatives, it is not a recommendation for future action.
There's an issue of "justice" here. The b&m entity pays protection money to the government, which can by very sleazy logic be claimed to be just, payment for service. The out-of-state mail-order house is not being protected by the local government. The government is not providing any service to the seller, and charging for nothing is nothing but theft.
Property tax is paid by the company on its property. In many cases there is also an inventory tax, inventory being a form of property. That tax is implicitly passed on to you as part of the costs of doing business, reflected in the selling price of the goods you buy.
Sales tax is explicit, being charged on a sale for which the state provides no service to justify the tax. Some states (California, for example) require that residents pay sales taxes on items sold out of state and shipped instate. In practice, that is unenforceable, except on items like automobiles that have to be registered to be used. Because it is unenforceable, states are making a grab at the money where it exists in large quantities and where it seems that the money's owner is vulnerable. Tough titty for those states, those companies are outside their jurisdiction and the states' attempted grab is unconstitutional.
One of the central principles of justice is that you get what you pay for and pay for what you get. Injustice arises when your money or what you've paid for is separated from you without your permission. To apply this to government, consider this: The proper basic function of government is to protect a person's life and the means by which he keeps himself alive (primarily property). For protection of your life you pay a fixed dollar amount for being a person. This is called capitation, also sometimes called a poll tax (but not to be confused with a fee for voting, which may be a bad idea.) For protection of your property, you pay a property tax, i.e. a tax on those things you own.
Government does not (generally) sell items or provide services that make sales possible (excepting the USPS, which already charges for its services.) Charging (sales tax) for something it does not provide is a straightforward injustice.
If the Arabs won a war with Israel, no Israeli would live long enough to be captured, unless torture was planned. Islamic hatred of Jews is completely comparable to Nazi's, with the additional cruelty that comes from a primitive society.
California's 1979 decision quickly resulted in a lot of complaints from owners and customers being accosted by loudmouths. As a consequence, the unlimited-free-speech-in-a shopping-mall soon became "you can harangue only in this haranguing zone." Some stores even have lines painted on the sidewalk that the pests have to stay within.
Digital radio communication of analog signals makes sense where signal strength can be guaranteed adequate, generally 18 dB SNR or better. Except for the very powerful transmitters in major cities, the receiver needs to be within about 10 miles of the transmitter for reception to be OK, and even closer if the receiver is mobile (because the receiver moves through areas of varying signal strength.)
Going to digital for TV was a marginally acceptable decision. Most TV receivers are unmoving. Most TV is already cable or satellite, so the broadcast market was already marginal. Analog TV is a bandwidth hog. Digital TV is almost always superior to analog TV if it doesn't drop out, and format options are more versatile. All these together made the transition to digital broadcast TV a good idea for everyone except for a minority of people in the "fringe" reception areas.
The comparison for audio broadcast is very different. Audio, even FM, is not an excessive bandwidth hog. Except for the highest bitrates (applicable only for standard FM bandwidths, AM need not apply) the digital quality is inferior to analog near the transmitter and markedly inferior far away from the transmitter.. Digital only wins in a annulus of medium distances. If the receiver is in your moving car and you're not in a strong signal area, breakup will be frequent and annoying in conditions that an analog receiver would merely experience a higher noise level. If the digital receiver is poorly designed (many are, I'm talkin' to YOU, direcTV), the audio will cut out with loud, startling, annoying squeaks. Digital broadcast radio is a lose-lose: outrageous upfront expenses to the broadcaster for proprietary compression formats and more expensive, inferior sound for the listener.
In addition, FM has a property called "capture" that when there are 2 signals, allows the slightly stronger signal to be received as if there were no interference whatsoever. I'm not sure, but I think it's likely that this property will be not quite as effective with digital signals.
The worst case situation is the "random device" reads nuclear bomb and biological weapon data from the network, takes down the whole network at work, wiping each drive before frying all computers. The company goes out of business, so you have no job. You throw out the device that caused the problem, the spy who planted the device recovers it and transmits the plans to the government of Potsylvania. Potsylvania makes the weapons, attacks your country and enslaves everyone who isn't killed.
Although I've never been happy with the drag-and-drop method of producing programs (because it hides too much of the internal mechanics), being able to get something running quickly and then altering it to do something better has a big appeal. Providing that enough of the workings are explained, this looks like a good approach.
What I don't understand from the article is why the program disappears because funding stops. The software is there, why can't teachers continue using it?
Kids will put effort into things that they see producing a result that they value. Being able to produce something fun, and having some but not too much difficulty in getting there, gives the student a feeling that his efforts are effective in controlling the world around him. That's a tremendous incentive.
I wish people would stop misusing the word "exponentially." It does not mean "rapidly increasing"; it has a precise mathematical definition. Misusing it leads to preposterous conclusions and makes the writer look ignorant.
"Bible thumper" means a lot more than Christian. It means someone who loudly proclaims that all truth comes from the Bible, and that anything that contradicts the Bible is wrong. It means someone who reads the Bible, and if he's smart enough to see the internal contradictions, twists his mind to find ways to make the contradiction go away.
Such people are at a substantial disadvantage compared to others who aren't wasting their time on fairy tales or destroying their minds making nonsense compatible with reality.
In my electrical engineering career I frequently had to write, compile, and run programs. Although that shouldn't require root, it certainly falls into the category of installing software.
If you've ever worked with someone who's productive but untrustworthy, you know that some people need to be precisely limited in their access. I know it's frustrating when I have to ask for permission just to do my job, but it's better than the guy who frequently crashes the servers to do so, or to have an unqualified person adding untested changes to a design.
If you bothered to read your link, you would have seen that the last thing he wrote was: "and I never did it again."
Pease made it a point to be a very careful driver. Given his declining health and the mental stress he was under from Williams' death, it's a fair bet that he suffered a heart attack or stroke and that caused him to lose control.
Slashdot Mirror
So spoke the thief.
Do you not understand that if the number of people growing food becomes too low to grow enough food, that prices will skyrocket and it will become immensely profitable to be a farmer?
Farmers need tractors. Farmers need doctors and veterinarians. Don't give me BS about how I need them, as if that were a unique situation.
Market forces tend to drive prices toward reasonable levels in the absence of government coercion.
You're not familiar with rural life. If you live on your own farm, your food costs are (mostly) covered.
Rural building costs are astonishingly lower than city. As a rule of thumb, 2/3 of the cost of a house is labor. Rural labor is non-union, often unregulated, and much cheaper. (Especially if it's your labor).
Very importantly, the $40100-$50900 figure is current income, and the $94400-$189000 is current estimated home price. If the family moved into the house 20 years ago, the dollar cost was half that amount and that is what they're now paying interest on.
There are places you can't get mail delivery. It's not uncommon for the USPS to insist you come into town for your mail, or if not that, to a major road where a bunch of mailboxes are grouped together.
Have you never heard the term "court costs"? It's not always the case, but there are times that you have to pay for the costs of a trial, including certain types of witnesses. A right to a trial is not a right to a free trial.
If you expect to be taken seriously, speak in serious terms instead of using gratuitous sexual slurs.
It may not have always been the case, but nowadays many communities are very careful about what roads they're going to build, precisely because they're expensive and have to be maintained. I live 1/10 mile beyond the end of pavement, and the town has refused to issue building permits further up the road precisely because they'd have to maintain the road.
In flat country, the cost of an unpaved road is close to zero. Repeatedly run a vehicle over the same path, and bingo! you've got a road.
That something is already done does not make it right or sensible. Without evaluation of costs, benefits, and alternatives, it is not a recommendation for future action.
There's an issue of "justice" here. The b&m entity pays protection money to the government, which can by very sleazy logic be claimed to be just, payment for service. The out-of-state mail-order house is not being protected by the local government. The government is not providing any service to the seller, and charging for nothing is nothing but theft.
Property tax is paid by the company on its property. In many cases there is also an inventory tax, inventory being a form of property. That tax is implicitly passed on to you as part of the costs of doing business, reflected in the selling price of the goods you buy.
Sales tax is explicit, being charged on a sale for which the state provides no service to justify the tax. Some states (California, for example) require that residents pay sales taxes on items sold out of state and shipped instate. In practice, that is unenforceable, except on items like automobiles that have to be registered to be used. Because it is unenforceable, states are making a grab at the money where it exists in large quantities and where it seems that the money's owner is vulnerable. Tough titty for those states, those companies are outside their jurisdiction and the states' attempted grab is unconstitutional.
One of the central principles of justice is that you get what you pay for and pay for what you get. Injustice arises when your money or what you've paid for is separated from you without your permission. To apply this to government, consider this: The proper basic function of government is to protect a person's life and the means by which he keeps himself alive (primarily property). For protection of your life you pay a fixed dollar amount for being a person. This is called capitation, also sometimes called a poll tax (but not to be confused with a fee for voting, which may be a bad idea.) For protection of your property, you pay a property tax, i.e. a tax on those things you own.
Government does not (generally) sell items or provide services that make sales possible (excepting the USPS, which already charges for its services.) Charging (sales tax) for something it does not provide is a straightforward injustice.
If the Arabs won a war with Israel, no Israeli would live long enough to be captured, unless torture was planned. Islamic hatred of Jews is completely comparable to Nazi's, with the additional cruelty that comes from a primitive society.
California's 1979 decision quickly resulted in a lot of complaints from owners and customers being accosted by loudmouths. As a consequence, the unlimited-free-speech-in-a shopping-mall soon became "you can harangue only in this haranguing zone." Some stores even have lines painted on the sidewalk that the pests have to stay within.
Digital radio communication of analog signals makes sense where signal strength can be guaranteed adequate, generally 18 dB SNR or better. Except for the very powerful transmitters in major cities, the receiver needs to be within about 10 miles of the transmitter for reception to be OK, and even closer if the receiver is mobile (because the receiver moves through areas of varying signal strength.)
Going to digital for TV was a marginally acceptable decision. Most TV receivers are unmoving. Most TV is already cable or satellite, so the broadcast market was already marginal. Analog TV is a bandwidth hog. Digital TV is almost always superior to analog TV if it doesn't drop out, and format options are more versatile. All these together made the transition to digital broadcast TV a good idea for everyone except for a minority of people in the "fringe" reception areas.
The comparison for audio broadcast is very different. Audio, even FM, is not an excessive bandwidth hog. Except for the highest bitrates (applicable only for standard FM bandwidths, AM need not apply) the digital quality is inferior to analog near the transmitter and markedly inferior far away from the transmitter.. Digital only wins in a annulus of medium distances. If the receiver is in your moving car and you're not in a strong signal area, breakup will be frequent and annoying in conditions that an analog receiver would merely experience a higher noise level. If the digital receiver is poorly designed (many are, I'm talkin' to YOU, direcTV), the audio will cut out with loud, startling, annoying squeaks. Digital broadcast radio is a lose-lose: outrageous upfront expenses to the broadcaster for proprietary compression formats and more expensive, inferior sound for the listener.
In addition, FM has a property called "capture" that when there are 2 signals, allows the slightly stronger signal to be received as if there were no interference whatsoever. I'm not sure, but I think it's likely that this property will be not quite as effective with digital signals.
The worst case situation is the "random device" reads nuclear bomb and biological weapon data from the network, takes down the whole network at work, wiping each drive before frying all computers. The company goes out of business, so you have no job. You throw out the device that caused the problem, the spy who planted the device recovers it and transmits the plans to the government of Potsylvania. Potsylvania makes the weapons, attacks your country and enslaves everyone who isn't killed.
Worst Case
That won't work in war crimes trials and it won't work here, either. Evil is evil.
Although I've never been happy with the drag-and-drop method of producing programs (because it hides too much of the internal mechanics), being able to get something running quickly and then altering it to do something better has a big appeal. Providing that enough of the workings are explained, this looks like a good approach.
What I don't understand from the article is why the program disappears because funding stops. The software is there, why can't teachers continue using it?
Kids will put effort into things that they see producing a result that they value. Being able to produce something fun, and having some but not too much difficulty in getting there, gives the student a feeling that his efforts are effective in controlling the world around him. That's a tremendous incentive.
The "loopholes" you refer to are bits of freedom in a less-free general environment.. So, it looks like you you want to remove the bits of freedom.
I wish people would stop misusing the word "exponentially." It does not mean "rapidly increasing"; it has a precise mathematical definition. Misusing it leads to preposterous conclusions and makes the writer look ignorant.
"Bible thumper" means a lot more than Christian. It means someone who loudly proclaims that all truth comes from the Bible, and that anything that contradicts the Bible is wrong. It means someone who reads the Bible, and if he's smart enough to see the internal contradictions, twists his mind to find ways to make the contradiction go away.
Such people are at a substantial disadvantage compared to others who aren't wasting their time on fairy tales or destroying their minds making nonsense compatible with reality.
And he's a bigger crook than I could ever hope to be. (BHO)
In my electrical engineering career I frequently had to write, compile, and run programs. Although that shouldn't require root, it certainly falls into the category of installing software.
If you've ever worked with someone who's productive but untrustworthy, you know that some people need to be precisely limited in their access. I know it's frustrating when I have to ask for permission just to do my job, but it's better than the guy who frequently crashes the servers to do so, or to have an unqualified person adding untested changes to a design.
If you bothered to read your link, you would have seen that the last thing he wrote was: "and I never did it again."
Pease made it a point to be a very careful driver. Given his declining health and the mental stress he was under from Williams' death, it's a fair bet that he suffered a heart attack or stroke and that caused him to lose control.