The universities are hiring the professors, the professors would not work if they did not get paid by the state. Passing a law about two parts of an organization not competing for the individual is a very questionable act.
In my case, the states are BRIBING companies and sports teams that would still work if they were not being paid by the state, they would simply work elsewhere. The companies are not supposed to be paid by the states, they are supposed to get money from their customers.
My law is about stopping governments from bribing people, where the law you are talking about is stopping governments from competing with each other.
Not the legal protections (those are fine), I mean the monetary incentives.
They are anti-competitive, and bad for the economy.
Frankly, the federal government should put a user fee on them at a prohibitive rate - i.e. 50%, paid out of the money given.
That is, if a state wishes to give a benefit worth $100 million to a company, that company owes $50 million paid immediately.
These things are usually paid to convince someone to build X in Y state, rather than Z state. It is almost never paid to get something built inside the USA, rather than outside the USA.
As such, any benefit to that particular state is outweighed by the loss to another state.
It is even worse when it comes to sports teams. Then, usually the teams make out like a bandit without in any way increasing the economy of the state (in particular, big cities will always get sports teams, even if the city refuses to build a stadium, because the city is where the CUSTOMERS for sports teams live. People in NYC are not going to suddenly decided to root for and see baseball in New Jersey if the Yankees and Mets leave the city. Not even if the stadium is build in Hoboken. Instead, some other team will build a stadium in New York, earn a ton of money from New Yorkers coming to them, then buy good players and suddenly everyone will be rooting for the NYC Metros, or whatever they call themselves (just like New Yorkers don't still root for the Dodgers, after all.)
Most of the problems are caused by small local communities using unfair seizure laws to fund their own community/special benefits.
Similarly, 99% of the problem could be stopped if they cancelled the Equitable Sharing program and instead insisted that all such seizures to go to the federal government, not to any local fund.
If you read the article, the scientists are not converting energy into matter.
Instead, they have caused some photons to be entangled so that they gain some of the properties of "liquid or solids". Not all the properties, not even the properties of a crystal, instead some of the properties of 'liquid or solid"
This article is just about one of the worst dumming down of science I have read. It was built up to sound 'click worthy', mainly be ignoring the actual research. They don't even use the word "entangled".
That is, the library should be able to create a dedicated l-e-book (library e-book) that has no USB or other input/output port.
The only way to access it would be via wireless, and it would have proprietary software that can use an open internet connection to go to the libraries specific website and search/download/erase books.
This prevents people from copying or 'stealing' (quotes there for a reason people) information, but would allow the same functionality that a normal lending library allows. The books could have automatic erasure programmed into the library-reader, after 2 weeks
You fail to understand the difference between spot detection and permanent detection.
If you sample one out of every 100 cars, all you are really doing is determining if a problem exists, not actually fixing the problem. Not even if you fix the randomly selected problem cars. You still need a separate program to analyze the manufacturing problems causing the defects then fix the problem, if it exists.
But having someone check ALL the cards, allows you to remove the bad ones and fix them before you sell them. You don't actually need a separate program, because your analysis IS the fix.
Similarly, a constant video recording program is the solution to the problem we detected by using random video recordings. Random recordings allow problems to flourish between the recordings. Constant recordings do not have this issue.
The fact that random recording don't fix the problem is no surprise, and constant recordings are qualitatively different so your argument is flawed.
He has a couple of "meet the police" fairs, which I never saw before.
He has done everything right that Ferguson did wrong.
Now, the NYC police is not perfect, but at least they are actively attempting to do a better job, rather than attempting to prove how 'tough' they are.
The police have a hard job and the violent nature of their business tends to make certain foolish people think their job is to be as powerful as possible.
Glad to see that NYC is moving in the right direction.
1) Never trust a civilian that says "these weapons you want are not very effective or what you need". He is not trained or capable to make that argument. It's like a mathematician saying he doesn't believe in global warming, or a priest saying he doesn't believe in evolution.
2) You can boil down his argument to what I originally said -"these weapons are good at killing people"
The argument is at heart "Don't develop these weapons because they will be good at killing people and I personally am not smart enough to come up with a civilan use that doesn't kill people".
It is the kind of idiocy that makes the military industrial complex laugh and call you names.
There are good reasons to ban weapons - but not just because the weapon is good at killing people. To those in the military, effectiveness at killing people is a reason to BUILD the weapon, not ban it.
Chemical are banned not because they kill people, but because they are likely to kill civilians and your own soldiers as much as they kill the enemy. They also people and damage valuable land after you win.
A similar argument applies to biological weapons, land mines and nuclear weapons.
There is NOTHING in this article that would convince a soldier to ban the weapons. Instead, any military person, upon reading it will of course demand that we spend lots of money figuring out how to build hypersonic missiles.
If you dislike war, ban it. But you are probably not naive enough to try that. You would lose the argument because such an attempt has many many flaws. Well guess what - trying to ban weapon research because the weapon is too goo is just as naive.
WORST of all, your naive and foolish attempts make it much harder to ban the weapons we actually CAN ban - land mines, chemical and biological warfare.
As badly as the 'originators' try to kill the secondary market by creating false problems, it still makes far more sense to buy timeshares on the secondary market.
All of the 'freebies' they offer never make up for the basic fact that sellers are desperate. The complex stuff they offer is only there to hide the fact that the primary market is a rip off in comparison.
Of course, you do need to accept the fact that you get less 'choice' on the secondary market. Still, it always makes more sense, if you can afford the time and effort to look and find a reputable website
The basics of dna replication are well known. We know they need to cycle heat.
They should have been using a standard heater, using the CPU's chip seems like a kludge.
It might work, but it seems unlikely to be the better than a purpose built device. At most it saves a bit of cash and energy, at the expense of accuracy and complex programming.
The amount of money saved by chip and pin is relatively low. A mere password doesn't cut it. US fraud rate is so low that it is not considered worthwhile.
Give us real security - a Token based system that generates a new single use credit card number for each and every purchase made using the card - both on and off line.
That number should only be reusable if you want to make it a reoccurring, monthly charge.
Wrong, on just so many levels. This demonstrates a total lack of understanding of property rights.. If you own property, you usually own the air rights. Up until recently, this usually only came into the law's purview when you can build above your property.
If for example, your neighbor on both sides get married, they legally can not build a bridge between their homes, over yours.
Also, you can SELL your air rights. It happens all the time in major cities. Typically, a new building will buy the air rights above an older one. They do this for two reasons.
1), if you have a large building with a good view, you might buy the air rights of the smaller buildings next to it to ensure you keep your view.
2) If the city has rules about how high you can build your building, sometimes they let you average it out over a city block. So if the city says no building may be above 200 ft, they might let you buy the 100 ft air rights of the building next to you, so your building can be 300 ft, and theirs is stuck at a mere 100 ft.
I remember there was this case where a woman in the US on an education visa was put on the list, allowed to fly out of the US, then not allowed to fly back in next september. She had not finished her studies.
She sued, and called her mother as a witness. Her mother was then put on the list and not allowed back in. The US denied doing this, but the airline said that was why she was not allowed to board.
Eventually they discovered that the original reason the daughter was put on the no fly list was that someone interviewing her had checked the wrong box on a form.
She won her law suit, and the US had to remove her from the list. This was after years of having her education interrupted.
Basically, the no fly list is a poorly managed piece of crap that they are ashamed to admit they usually have no idea why anyone is on the list.
Unfortunately, there are many unintended consequences of your actions. Among other things, people sometimes ride in someone else's cars. Sane people should not be required to double check and insist that the car has a seatbelt, air bags, etc. Not when they are riding with a friend, not when they are renting a car, not when they are getting into a taxi.
Did you read the original article? Because you just proven my own point. You did nothing to disprove them at all.
You can't say that currently, AFTER the government mandated something, that there is a market for it. Of course there is, people have grown up used to those things. I
The entire point of the original article was that certain things are not demanded by customers until they become widespread. Therefore the government should mandate them.
Airbags may or not have originally been quite dangerous. Without the mandate, they never would have become safe at all, and never would have been deemed necessary. With the mandate, research was done, and modern airbags and now deemed a necessity.
Your argument does make a somewhat reasonable claim that after government mandates do their job, we might be able to remove them. But that is another, entirely different argument.
By your own admittance, these government mandates worked and save many lives. The strong market for safety features exists only after the government mandated them. Before they existed, 1) they were not as effective because not enough testing and research was done, 2) the car companies did not advertise them, 3) people did not know about them. After the rules mandating them, testing and research skyrocketed, the car companies starting pushing them and people learned enough about them to demand car companies put them in.
Your own personal claims prove that you are wrong.
All the creatures have some slight bone changes, due to the absence of water and the effect of gravity.
Over time, those whose genes allow for greater changes breed true, while those whose genes limit these beneficial changes tend to breed less.
Eventually someone gets a mutation that makes it slightly easier to walk and effectively makes it much harder to swim. As they no longer swim, that mutation gets bred into everyone.
Ta da, the 'temporary plasticity' has become permaennt.
Slashdot Mirror
The universities are hiring the professors, the professors would not work if they did not get paid by the state. Passing a law about two parts of an organization not competing for the individual is a very questionable act.
In my case, the states are BRIBING companies and sports teams that would still work if they were not being paid by the state, they would simply work elsewhere. The companies are not supposed to be paid by the states, they are supposed to get money from their customers.
My law is about stopping governments from bribing people, where the law you are talking about is stopping governments from competing with each other.
They are anti-competitive, and bad for the economy.
Frankly, the federal government should put a user fee on them at a prohibitive rate - i.e. 50%, paid out of the money given.
That is, if a state wishes to give a benefit worth $100 million to a company, that company owes $50 million paid immediately.
These things are usually paid to convince someone to build X in Y state, rather than Z state. It is almost never paid to get something built inside the USA, rather than outside the USA.
As such, any benefit to that particular state is outweighed by the loss to another state.
It is even worse when it comes to sports teams. Then, usually the teams make out like a bandit without in any way increasing the economy of the state (in particular, big cities will always get sports teams, even if the city refuses to build a stadium, because the city is where the CUSTOMERS for sports teams live. People in NYC are not going to suddenly decided to root for and see baseball in New Jersey if the Yankees and Mets leave the city. Not even if the stadium is build in Hoboken. Instead, some other team will build a stadium in New York, earn a ton of money from New Yorkers coming to them, then buy good players and suddenly everyone will be rooting for the NYC Metros, or whatever they call themselves (just like New Yorkers don't still root for the Dodgers, after all.)
You don't need to be greedy. Simply requiring the law enforcement to pay interest and to pay attorney fees should be sufficient.
Similarly, 99% of the problem could be stopped if they cancelled the Equitable Sharing program and instead insisted that all such seizures to go to the federal government, not to any local fund.
Instead, they have caused some photons to be entangled so that they gain some of the properties of "liquid or solids". Not all the properties, not even the properties of a crystal, instead some of the properties of 'liquid or solid"
This article is just about one of the worst dumming down of science I have read. It was built up to sound 'click worthy', mainly be ignoring the actual research. They don't even use the word "entangled".
The only way to access it would be via wireless, and it would have proprietary software that can use an open internet connection to go to the libraries specific website and search/download/erase books.
This prevents people from copying or 'stealing' (quotes there for a reason people) information, but would allow the same functionality that a normal lending library allows. The books could have automatic erasure programmed into the library-reader, after 2 weeks
If you sample one out of every 100 cars, all you are really doing is determining if a problem exists, not actually fixing the problem. Not even if you fix the randomly selected problem cars. You still need a separate program to analyze the manufacturing problems causing the defects then fix the problem, if it exists.
But having someone check ALL the cards, allows you to remove the bad ones and fix them before you sell them. You don't actually need a separate program, because your analysis IS the fix.
Similarly, a constant video recording program is the solution to the problem we detected by using random video recordings. Random recordings allow problems to flourish between the recordings. Constant recordings do not have this issue.
The fact that random recording don't fix the problem is no surprise, and constant recordings are qualitatively different so your argument is flawed.
He has a couple of "meet the police" fairs, which I never saw before.
He has done everything right that Ferguson did wrong.
Now, the NYC police is not perfect, but at least they are actively attempting to do a better job, rather than attempting to prove how 'tough' they are.
The police have a hard job and the violent nature of their business tends to make certain foolish people think their job is to be as powerful as possible.
Glad to see that NYC is moving in the right direction.
Are you a fool?
Of course we choose to invade our enemies, not our friends.
Iraq was a bad war, but it was bad because there was no real reason to do it. That is why we didn't accomplish anything with the war.
The fact that the people did not like us was not relevant.
Your opinions might be more popular if you scrape off the foolishness you precede it with.
That's how it's supposed to work, right?
1) Never trust a civilian that says "these weapons you want are not very effective or what you need". He is not trained or capable to make that argument. It's like a mathematician saying he doesn't believe in global warming, or a priest saying he doesn't believe in evolution. 2) You can boil down his argument to what I originally said -"these weapons are good at killing people"
It is the kind of idiocy that makes the military industrial complex laugh and call you names.
There are good reasons to ban weapons - but not just because the weapon is good at killing people. To those in the military, effectiveness at killing people is a reason to BUILD the weapon, not ban it.
Chemical are banned not because they kill people, but because they are likely to kill civilians and your own soldiers as much as they kill the enemy. They also people and damage valuable land after you win.
A similar argument applies to biological weapons, land mines and nuclear weapons.
There is NOTHING in this article that would convince a soldier to ban the weapons. Instead, any military person, upon reading it will of course demand that we spend lots of money figuring out how to build hypersonic missiles.
If you dislike war, ban it. But you are probably not naive enough to try that. You would lose the argument because such an attempt has many many flaws. Well guess what - trying to ban weapon research because the weapon is too goo is just as naive.
WORST of all, your naive and foolish attempts make it much harder to ban the weapons we actually CAN ban - land mines, chemical and biological warfare.
He would need a court order declaring who the new owner and force them to correct their records.
All of the 'freebies' they offer never make up for the basic fact that sellers are desperate. The complex stuff they offer is only there to hide the fact that the primary market is a rip off in comparison.
Of course, you do need to accept the fact that you get less 'choice' on the secondary market. Still, it always makes more sense, if you can afford the time and effort to look and find a reputable website
They should have been using a standard heater, using the CPU's chip seems like a kludge.
It might work, but it seems unlikely to be the better than a purpose built device. At most it saves a bit of cash and energy, at the expense of accuracy and complex programming.
Give us real security - a Token based system that generates a new single use credit card number for each and every purchase made using the card - both on and off line.
That number should only be reusable if you want to make it a reoccurring, monthly charge.
It might refer to Uber having their employees book fake rides on other taxi services, then cancelling.
He won't be getting his job back. He might get a lot of cash.
But they do this by paying LARGE amounts of money.
If the union backs him, he will probably get his job.
If the union does not back him, he won't get his job, he will instead get a ton of money.
If for example, your neighbor on both sides get married, they legally can not build a bridge between their homes, over yours.
Also, you can SELL your air rights. It happens all the time in major cities. Typically, a new building will buy the air rights above an older one. They do this for two reasons.
1), if you have a large building with a good view, you might buy the air rights of the smaller buildings next to it to ensure you keep your view.
2) If the city has rules about how high you can build your building, sometimes they let you average it out over a city block. So if the city says no building may be above 200 ft, they might let you buy the 100 ft air rights of the building next to you, so your building can be 300 ft, and theirs is stuck at a mere 100 ft.
She sued, and called her mother as a witness. Her mother was then put on the list and not allowed back in. The US denied doing this, but the airline said that was why she was not allowed to board.
Eventually they discovered that the original reason the daughter was put on the no fly list was that someone interviewing her had checked the wrong box on a form.
She won her law suit, and the US had to remove her from the list. This was after years of having her education interrupted.
Basically, the no fly list is a poorly managed piece of crap that they are ashamed to admit they usually have no idea why anyone is on the list.
Unfortunately, there are many unintended consequences of your actions. Among other things, people sometimes ride in someone else's cars. Sane people should not be required to double check and insist that the car has a seatbelt, air bags, etc. Not when they are riding with a friend, not when they are renting a car, not when they are getting into a taxi.
You can't say that currently, AFTER the government mandated something, that there is a market for it. Of course there is, people have grown up used to those things. I
The entire point of the original article was that certain things are not demanded by customers until they become widespread. Therefore the government should mandate them.
Airbags may or not have originally been quite dangerous. Without the mandate, they never would have become safe at all, and never would have been deemed necessary. With the mandate, research was done, and modern airbags and now deemed a necessity.
Your argument does make a somewhat reasonable claim that after government mandates do their job, we might be able to remove them. But that is another, entirely different argument.
By your own admittance, these government mandates worked and save many lives. The strong market for safety features exists only after the government mandated them. Before they existed, 1) they were not as effective because not enough testing and research was done, 2) the car companies did not advertise them, 3) people did not know about them. After the rules mandating them, testing and research skyrocketed, the car companies starting pushing them and people learned enough about them to demand car companies put them in.
Your own personal claims prove that you are wrong.
This one was along the lines of "I don't think so, but there might be a designer about to be fired for stupidity".
All the creatures have some slight bone changes, due to the absence of water and the effect of gravity.
Over time, those whose genes allow for greater changes breed true, while those whose genes limit these beneficial changes tend to breed less.
Eventually someone gets a mutation that makes it slightly easier to walk and effectively makes it much harder to swim. As they no longer swim, that mutation gets bred into everyone.
Ta da, the 'temporary plasticity' has become permaennt.