Look, the numbers for new businesses are always crap - that's why you get the high returns.
For every 10 businesses you start, seven go out of business in the first year. One more squeaks along till the 2nd year, another becomes a 'viable loss' (i.e. they make money, but less than their owner could earn if they got a job working for a major corporation), and only the last one makes any money. But that last one will make so much money that the owner becomes wealthy
That show VC works - they invest in 10 start ups, one of them gives them a return on their investment that is 20x, or 100x how much they gave it, and they go away happy. The other 9 they invested in are just the cost of doing business.
I think by law, that whenever this happens, the company 's owner should have their house destroyed - along with all of their personal photos, keepsakes and see if they think it is a big deal.
Basic rule should be an estimate value of the house x 3 - if they don't sue. x 6 if you have to sue. Because emotional losses are far bigger than the physical ones.
Say a fair price for a specific job at age 30, with your experience (after taking off 2 years to raise a child) is 86k. But because you are a woman, you get paid only 72k, and a man doing the same job gets paid 100k.
But you are married to a 40 year man. Because he is older, and never took time off to raise the children, he is making 150k. If was female, he would have only earned 108k. A fair price salary would be 129k (half way between 108 and 150). But being male, he makes 150k.
Your combined salary is now 150+72=222k.
Now compare that if you both got a fair salary of 86k+129k = 215k.
That is, a married couple living in a society where women take time off to raise a child, and women marry older men, but everyone gets paid a fair salary regardless of gender, end up making $7,000 less, than if they live in a discriminatory society where men make more than women do.
Gay women get screwed the most as they both get the 14% discount to their value. Gay men make out like bandits because they both get the 14% upgrade. But married couples - and that includes the brides as well as the grooms - are still CLEAR winners in our current system.
As long as the majority of women in our culture expect to get married to an older man, expect to take time off to raise their kids (while their husband keeps working), then they can also expect to benefit from getting a lower salary.
This is despite the fact that the system is clearly and obviously biased and unfair.
Are they bragging about how well they managed to duplicate today's youth? Because after watching a video about Trump, that is what it looks like to me.
That is true. But these kind of reports always fail to explain WHY this continues to happen.
The quiet truth is that a large number of women benefit TREMEDOUSLY from the current set up.
If you area straight woman who follow the traditional cultural model - who takes years off her career to raise a child, while married to an older man, than those woman benefit HUGELY from the current system. (x-14% salary at age 30, after 5 year's off to raise a kid is WELL worth it if you are married to a man that that makes x+14% at age 40, no time off)
The prevalence of this tradition - and the constant admiration of it by our cultural - is why women still get paid less.
Gay women suffer the most from out system, and gay men benefit the most. Never married women come out the 2nd worst, never married men come out the 2nd best.
If you want to end the pay difference, you have to encourage woman to marry YOUNGER men then them. Once that happens, boom, the pay gap will vanish.
The fact that the ROCKEFELLER fund came to the conclusion is the news. Rockefeller made his money by creating the modern oil industry. He monopolized oil, beating up anyone that refused to sell their oil wells to him.
Basically, it's the equivalent of Bill Gates's charities selling all their Microsoft stock and buying Apple shares.
Please also note that the system I wrote is designed to work even if most people do not file a counter claim. Hence the 95% rule.
Obviously I was talking about a new LAW that needs to be passed by Congress, not a new policy that Youtube should implement. You did see that I wrote "similar sites"? How would Youtube make similar sites do anything? You clearly misinterpreted what I was saying.
Money wins against free, 90% of the time. Money pays people to do work, then free has to do that work for nothing.
We need the following system in place, by law.
1) Youtube (and similar sites), must rank all censor requestors that make more than 10 requests a year, by how many requests are found to be invalid.
2) Those that rank in the bottom 5%, i.e. more of your requests are found to be invalid than 95% of the rest of the requestors), then next year, you must pay a refundable fee of $120 per request. If it is found to be invalid, the person you tried to censor gets $100, Youtube keeps the $20.
3) If you attempt to game the system (by using multiple logins or other methods), you must pay double that fee.
Each group of vehicles will need a home base, probably with a mechanic, fuel, and place to store most (if not all) of the vehicles in case of disaster i.e. a flood/storm/blizzard when all cars are ordered off the road.
Right now, they have a ready made test market in Nevada (laws already passed), which they will most likely have to self-insure the vehicles. But they have the money to do it.
First, I think they are you are assuming they quit a job and become unemployed. The people in question are in HIGH demand. The question is not quit and get unemployment checks, but instead, quit and start your own company as CEO.
Second. It is not about not agreeing with law enforcement, that is your particular fantasy about what is going on. Instead it is quit because they believe that DOJ is violating the Constitution of the United States of America. People that really, truly think the government is about the violate the Constitution really will quit their jobs. This is in direct contradiction to the tin-foil idiots that think the DOJ has already violated the Constitution but have done nothing but post stupid comments.
Your belief that people have no principles reflects your personal mental foibles, not those of the rest of the world. They are not trying to fool anyone, they don't give a crap about what you or the general public cares about.
Also, Demi-gods no longer need money and do it for the principle/love.
Finally, there is nothing magical about Apple. If their best, most devoted, principled employees quit, the next "Jesus-phone" as you put it, will be a piece of crap and fail. Worse, remember who I said they would start their own company? The new Apple failure phone would have to compete with the new products created by the old employees, who quite likely would base their corporation in Vancouver, Canada in order to avoid the FBI issues. Wonderful city, still on the west coast, everyone speaks English.
You think people get promoted for redacting? Nobody gets a promotion for properly redacting anything.
Corporate Redactions used to be done by legal assistants, but the trend has moved to have lawyers do them. It would not surprise me if the DOJ had assistants do it, rather than senior people.
No one ever cares about redactions done properly, you can't get a promotion for doing it well, only a demotion/firing for doing it poorly
The fact that fewer and fewer people use them simply increases your security.
If and when you replace your PC with a device that doesn't have an optical drive, then the last thing you do with your old PC is to copy the data from the disks to something new.
Till then, the fading popularity of DVDs is just an added layer of security for you.
Have you heard of something called The Supreme Court? It is supposed to prevent the abuses you decry. It has in the past stopped the US government from doing things. Merely because you don't think they do it often enough is not evidence that there is no check.
As for the idea that government is a monopoly, you are obviously wrong. There are other countries, and you are personally free to move to ANY of them. Go check out Sudan, there is practically no government there.
Specifically, if you are PAYING Facebook to advertise to other people, then using it may not be stupid. They are not big on letting people/company pay them unless someone from the company already has a Facebook account.
1) If you think sushi, salad and tartar are created without knives, you are an idiot. Worse, sushi consists of rice, which needs at the very least fire to boil the water. Tartar is made with a massive amount of knife work. Salad is the closest, and we can't live on raw vegetables alone, except in very rare circumstances where certain plants all grow in the same area.
2) The Inuit and Japanese all use knives. The fact you don't think they do indicates either extreme ignorance, or racism. Hell, most of them use microwaves and freezers.
It is true we can eat larvae of bugs without knives or fire - but are far more likely to die of vitamin deficiency and/disease from eathing raw foods like that.
Note I did say 'practically non-existent', rather than actually non-existent. It is theoretically possible for a human to catch and safely consume non-cooked, un-cut plants/animals, but it is VERY difficult to do.
I do know what the word "fascist" means, but you don't have to know. You have made a major mistake by relying on definition instead of history. First and foremost, if you took your head out of your a$$, you would realize I did not say they were fascists, I said they sounded like facists - which is true.
Historically, the fascists governments lied about what was lawful.That was the aspect of fascism I was referencing. They would routinely make claims about x being lawful. So anyone that just says "what I did was legal", without backing it up sounds like a fascists - even if they are a liberal commie pig instead of a fascist.
Also, why did you bring the ACLU into it? I never mentioned them at all. They are a wonderful organization that has nothing to do with this discussion. The mere fact that the article claimed an un-named ACLU person accepted a blanket statement does not mean that the statement is true.
Stop being a PC jerk, reacting to words you dislike and actually pay attention to how the words were used
We have a multitude of laws preventing government espionage. I did not make the claim that what they did was unlawful, they made the claim that what they did was lawful.
The said world we live in is a history of governments lying about what is lawful. As such, their blatant word must be supported, not the other way around. They gave no such support.
Again, I don't think laws are necessary to make things lawful, that simply is a lie you said. I claimed and repeat the claim here that fascist governments routinely claim that what they do is lawful without any support for that claim - just like they did here.
Multiple people claimed that drowning someone was a legal way to conduct an interrogation. Specifically, the person lawyer by the name of John Yoo made that claim, as did a bunch of republicans. John Yoo also claimed that "president's war-making authority was so broad that he had the constitutional power to order a village to be 'massacred'"
At worst, I used a slightly different wording to describe a torture technique that was outlawed 20 years BEFORE John Yoo was born.
There is a huge difference between "lawful" as in 'We did nothing that any civilian could not also do, without any special authorization." and "lawful" as in "our lawyers, whom we pay and have previously said that drowning someone is an acceptable information gathering technique, claim is consistent with the law".
Basically, the word "lawful" is not in any way helpful without further explanation. It's the equivalent of saying "Nah, nah, my mother said it's OK."
You want to convince me it's lawful, state the supreme court ruling or specific law that allows it. Otherwise, don't talk about it being lawful, it just makes you look like a fascist.
As in, it wasn't accepted scientific theory that a combination of fire and stone knives are responsible for our decreased gastrological abilities?
It seemed patently obvious to me and should have been accepted fact 50 years ago, if not 100 years ago.
Humans can not live without knives and fire. We can't kill large animals or microscopic parasites because our biological tools for consuming unprepared foods are practically non-existent. But we evolved from animals that a) did not have fire or knives and b) have much better teeth, claws, and digestive systems that can handle a lot more than we can.
The obvious conclusion is that we must have lost our claws, teeth and seriously weakened our digestive systems after developing fire and knives, both of which are far better than the natural versions other primates have.
Next thing you know, someone is going to say that walking upright freed our hands to carry things, as if it's a big 'discovery'.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, the numbers for new businesses are always crap - that's why you get the high returns.
For every 10 businesses you start, seven go out of business in the first year. One more squeaks along till the 2nd year, another becomes a 'viable loss' (i.e. they make money, but less than their owner could earn if they got a job working for a major corporation), and only the last one makes any money. But that last one will make so much money that the owner becomes wealthy
That show VC works - they invest in 10 start ups, one of them gives them a return on their investment that is 20x, or 100x how much they gave it, and they go away happy. The other 9 they invested in are just the cost of doing business.
This is not the first time this has happened.
I think by law, that whenever this happens, the company 's owner should have their house destroyed - along with all of their personal photos, keepsakes and see if they think it is a big deal.
Basic rule should be an estimate value of the house x 3 - if they don't sue. x 6 if you have to sue. Because emotional losses are far bigger than the physical ones.
Say a fair price for a specific job at age 30, with your experience (after taking off 2 years to raise a child) is 86k. But because you are a woman, you get paid only 72k, and a man doing the same job gets paid 100k.
But you are married to a 40 year man. Because he is older, and never took time off to raise the children, he is making 150k. If was female, he would have only earned 108k. A fair price salary would be 129k (half way between 108 and 150). But being male, he makes 150k.
Your combined salary is now 150+72=222k.
Now compare that if you both got a fair salary of 86k+129k = 215k.
That is, a married couple living in a society where women take time off to raise a child, and women marry older men, but everyone gets paid a fair salary regardless of gender, end up making $7,000 less, than if they live in a discriminatory society where men make more than women do.
Gay women get screwed the most as they both get the 14% discount to their value. Gay men make out like bandits because they both get the 14% upgrade. But married couples - and that includes the brides as well as the grooms - are still CLEAR winners in our current system.
As long as the majority of women in our culture expect to get married to an older man, expect to take time off to raise their kids (while their husband keeps working), then they can also expect to benefit from getting a lower salary.
This is despite the fact that the system is clearly and obviously biased and unfair.
Are they bragging about how well they managed to duplicate today's youth? Because after watching a video about Trump, that is what it looks like to me.
That is true. But these kind of reports always fail to explain WHY this continues to happen.
The quiet truth is that a large number of women benefit TREMEDOUSLY from the current set up.
If you area straight woman who follow the traditional cultural model - who takes years off her career to raise a child, while married to an older man, than those woman benefit HUGELY from the current system. (x-14% salary at age 30, after 5 year's off to raise a kid is WELL worth it if you are married to a man that that makes x+14% at age 40, no time off)
The prevalence of this tradition - and the constant admiration of it by our cultural - is why women still get paid less.
Gay women suffer the most from out system, and gay men benefit the most. Never married women come out the 2nd worst, never married men come out the 2nd best.
If you want to end the pay difference, you have to encourage woman to marry YOUNGER men then them. Once that happens, boom, the pay gap will vanish.
All that bullshit because the FBI wanted to save $15 thousand dollars?
Someone should be fired for such a dramatically bad decision as fighting it out in the court of public opinion, let alone federal court.
I find your lack of knowledge disturbing.
The fact that the ROCKEFELLER fund came to the conclusion is the news. Rockefeller made his money by creating the modern oil industry. He monopolized oil, beating up anyone that refused to sell their oil wells to him.
Basically, it's the equivalent of Bill Gates's charities selling all their Microsoft stock and buying Apple shares.
Please also note that the system I wrote is designed to work even if most people do not file a counter claim. Hence the 95% rule.
Obviously I was talking about a new LAW that needs to be passed by Congress, not a new policy that Youtube should implement. You did see that I wrote "similar sites"? How would Youtube make similar sites do anything? You clearly misinterpreted what I was saying.
Money wins against free, 90% of the time. Money pays people to do work, then free has to do that work for nothing.
We need the following system in place, by law.
1) Youtube (and similar sites), must rank all censor requestors that make more than 10 requests a year, by how many requests are found to be invalid.
2) Those that rank in the bottom 5%, i.e. more of your requests are found to be invalid than 95% of the rest of the requestors), then next year, you must pay a refundable fee of $120 per request. If it is found to be invalid, the person you tried to censor gets $100, Youtube keeps the $20.
3) If you attempt to game the system (by using multiple logins or other methods), you must pay double that fee.
Each group of vehicles will need a home base, probably with a mechanic, fuel, and place to store most (if not all) of the vehicles in case of disaster i.e. a flood/storm/blizzard when all cars are ordered off the road.
Right now, they have a ready made test market in Nevada (laws already passed), which they will most likely have to self-insure the vehicles. But they have the money to do it.
You are wrong on several levels.
First, I think they are you are assuming they quit a job and become unemployed. The people in question are in HIGH demand. The question is not quit and get unemployment checks, but instead, quit and start your own company as CEO.
Second. It is not about not agreeing with law enforcement, that is your particular fantasy about what is going on. Instead it is quit because they believe that DOJ is violating the Constitution of the United States of America. People that really, truly think the government is about the violate the Constitution really will quit their jobs. This is in direct contradiction to the tin-foil idiots that think the DOJ has already violated the Constitution but have done nothing but post stupid comments.
Your belief that people have no principles reflects your personal mental foibles, not those of the rest of the world. They are not trying to fool anyone, they don't give a crap about what you or the general public cares about.
Also, Demi-gods no longer need money and do it for the principle/love.
Finally, there is nothing magical about Apple. If their best, most devoted, principled employees quit, the next "Jesus-phone" as you put it, will be a piece of crap and fail. Worse, remember who I said they would start their own company? The new Apple failure phone would have to compete with the new products created by the old employees, who quite likely would base their corporation in Vancouver, Canada in order to avoid the FBI issues. Wonderful city, still on the west coast, everyone speaks English.
Are you kidding? All the ESA needs to do is have their rover re-broadcast a terrorist beheading.
Before you know it, the US will invade.
You think people get promoted for redacting? Nobody gets a promotion for properly redacting anything.
Corporate Redactions used to be done by legal assistants, but the trend has moved to have lawyers do them. It would not surprise me if the DOJ had assistants do it, rather than senior people.
No one ever cares about redactions done properly, you can't get a promotion for doing it well, only a demotion/firing for doing it poorly
My experience on the internet is that it is not currently an issue.
There are too many idiots ranting about their personal version of the tinfoil hat. Therefore, there has been no chilling effect on the internet.
Is the way to go.
The fact that fewer and fewer people use them simply increases your security.
If and when you replace your PC with a device that doesn't have an optical drive, then the last thing you do with your old PC is to copy the data from the disks to something new.
Till then, the fading popularity of DVDs is just an added layer of security for you.
Have you heard of something called The Supreme Court? It is supposed to prevent the abuses you decry. It has in the past stopped the US government from doing things. Merely because you don't think they do it often enough is not evidence that there is no check.
As for the idea that government is a monopoly, you are obviously wrong. There are other countries, and you are personally free to move to ANY of them. Go check out Sudan, there is practically no government there.
Your complaint is that the media does not use convoluted language? That's not something that someone that isn't stupid would say.
Mostly true, but there is one exception.
Specifically, if you are PAYING Facebook to advertise to other people, then using it may not be stupid. They are not big on letting people/company pay them unless someone from the company already has a Facebook account.
Basically, it's the Internet for people not skilled enough to set up a web page, a blog, a mass email system, or find games for themselves.
It will always attract the laziest and stupidest users - which will always outnumber the intelligent and privacy valuing users.
But it will never take over completely, and the rest of the web will continue to exist for everyone that isn't that lazy and foolish.
If by some miracle, Facebook dies, an equivalent will rise up to serve the same lazy, unskilled user base.
Getting old is horrible. There is only thing worse. The alternative.
2) The Inuit and Japanese all use knives. The fact you don't think they do indicates either extreme ignorance, or racism. Hell, most of them use microwaves and freezers.
It is true we can eat larvae of bugs without knives or fire - but are far more likely to die of vitamin deficiency and/disease from eathing raw foods like that.
Note I did say 'practically non-existent', rather than actually non-existent. It is theoretically possible for a human to catch and safely consume non-cooked, un-cut plants/animals, but it is VERY difficult to do.
Historically, the fascists governments lied about what was lawful.That was the aspect of fascism I was referencing. They would routinely make claims about x being lawful. So anyone that just says "what I did was legal", without backing it up sounds like a fascists - even if they are a liberal commie pig instead of a fascist.
Also, why did you bring the ACLU into it? I never mentioned them at all. They are a wonderful organization that has nothing to do with this discussion. The mere fact that the article claimed an un-named ACLU person accepted a blanket statement does not mean that the statement is true.
Stop being a PC jerk, reacting to words you dislike and actually pay attention to how the words were used
We have a multitude of laws preventing government espionage. I did not make the claim that what they did was unlawful, they made the claim that what they did was lawful.
The said world we live in is a history of governments lying about what is lawful. As such, their blatant word must be supported, not the other way around. They gave no such support.
Again, I don't think laws are necessary to make things lawful, that simply is a lie you said. I claimed and repeat the claim here that fascist governments routinely claim that what they do is lawful without any support for that claim - just like they did here.
Multiple people claimed that drowning someone was a legal way to conduct an interrogation. Specifically, the person lawyer by the name of John Yoo made that claim, as did a bunch of republicans. John Yoo also claimed that "president's war-making authority was so broad that he had the constitutional power to order a village to be 'massacred'"
At worst, I used a slightly different wording to describe a torture technique that was outlawed 20 years BEFORE John Yoo was born.
Basically, the word "lawful" is not in any way helpful without further explanation. It's the equivalent of saying "Nah, nah, my mother said it's OK."
You want to convince me it's lawful, state the supreme court ruling or specific law that allows it. Otherwise, don't talk about it being lawful, it just makes you look like a fascist.
It seemed patently obvious to me and should have been accepted fact 50 years ago, if not 100 years ago.
Humans can not live without knives and fire. We can't kill large animals or microscopic parasites because our biological tools for consuming unprepared foods are practically non-existent. But we evolved from animals that a) did not have fire or knives and b) have much better teeth, claws, and digestive systems that can handle a lot more than we can.
The obvious conclusion is that we must have lost our claws, teeth and seriously weakened our digestive systems after developing fire and knives, both of which are far better than the natural versions other primates have.
Next thing you know, someone is going to say that walking upright freed our hands to carry things, as if it's a big 'discovery'.