I spend most of my time reading a high-quality news-heavy newspaper, and then assorted stories from various online sources. And not by visiting a media frontpage. I don't have time for clickbait, and serious well-researched stories can't be pumped out once a minute. And you're not going to understand much if all you read is news articles.
And you're just asking for retaliation for Hillary's shitposting and inflammatory memes. I don't want to see commerce imploding because no one will work or buy from anyone else. If you're going to try to screw each other over, can't you at least keep it to politics?
I haven't read the opinion, but did the court say that because non-Americans might do bad things, it's ok to strip Americans of their rights in order to prevent non-Americans from doing bad things?
I expect a Score of 5, recognition of me me me, and tons of posts to this thread glorifying me and my ideas. Which don't need to be explained, I'm on the internet!
Always seems more like the anti-SJW crowd trying to stir up the SJWs, as a form of trolling. The title is not supported by the story, the title is a troll, and the anti-SJW crowd fell for it, while the SJW crowd apparently didn't care (or perhaps are literate, and realized the title was a troll).
What are you talking about? Are you asking who trolls the trolls?
Coursera offers free course product online to consumers for many years. Coursera decides to no longer offer the free courses many years later. Users, having had free (i.e., unpaid) access to the courses for many years, courtesy of Coursera, become extremely upset when no longer given free stuff by Coursera.
Even if such loans are "predatory" and "harmful" to consumers, this will just increase the strength of the variables that Google sees as being predatory and harmful in the first place. It's unfortunate that, due to either ignorance or cynicism, Google is the one harming consumers the most. http://reason.com/blog/2016/05...
Neo-Luddites are always right. I mean, they've always been right with their predictions before, right? And surely, they fully understand economics too, because greater productivity, i.e. greater efficiency, which leads to specialization of labor, has made us all starving brutes.
And? Stop using Facebook (FB), at least for your news. FB is not the only place to find news on the internet, and its far easier to find news than bothering with FB's trending news swamp of celebrities. I suspect Gizmondo is allowing its own political biases to override the facts here; thank goodness we have innumerable news sources beyond FB and Gizmondo. Use Google Search.
First, they don't know what capitalism or socialism means, and prefer capitalism over socialism when explained in basic terms. Second, how can they focus on the flaws of the free-market when there isn't one in the first place? Admittedly, they could have studied economics and be against perceived flaws, but not knowing what capitalism or socialism is, I think almost certainly not.
Oregon has electricity rates below the median for America. Their rates are much less than I pay in California. Although in California we are almost coal free, at 0.5% of production.
What is this supposed to mean? It sets forth facts but has no conclusion.
'Comcast's actions could result in fewer online video choices for viewers nationwide, while increasing its dominance as a video gatekeeper," Bergmayer says. "If its behavior persists, prices will go up, the number of choices will go down, creators will have a harder time reaching an audience, and viewers will have a harder time accessing diverse and independent programming.' - Note active voice
"Comcast's response is that Stream TV doesn't go over the internet, but is delivered over the same closed path as its cable streams, and so is exempt from the rules. It calls Stream TV a cable service, not an OTT service." - Note passive voice
There was a time when conquests could only be made if you landed on at least a tiny beach, regardless of the size of the landmass, and if anyone's already living there. Now, those grasping for ultimate control, especially so no one can be free if they escape their regimes on earth, claim what they've never touched, might not even have ever seen, and have no plans to ever visit and plant the flag on. A transparent attempt to ensure that only government can own anything at the end of the day, not individuals.
Nothing makes up for lack of a Trackpoint. Also, the article gives no evidence that Macs retain up to 50% of their value after 5 years, which is a sketchy claim, considering how fast things are improved.
The argument is not whether or not the proposal will "work." The issue is that jobs providing products and services that consumers actually want will be reduced to pay for a robotics program that consumers do not want. This proposal evinces an antimarket bias. It also has an antiforeign bias, in that it attempts to increase market share at the expense of foreigners for no apparent reason beyond base protectionism, ignoring the benefits of comparative advantage and the specialization of labor. Instead of Europe producing what it is best position to do so and satisfying consumer demand, it will be wasting jobs and resources in an attempt to "beat" disfavoured foreigners in market share in robotics.
This is another example of corporate welfare masquerading as a jobs plan, combined with protectionist sentiment. The central planners will take money out of the productive economy and spend it on a corporate giveaway to favoured interests. Jobs that otherwise would have been created in the productive sector will be lost, while only the 240,000 pork barrel jobs will be noticed by the superficial. Whether Europe is best positioned for the robotic industry will be ignored. Instead of this boondoggle, it would be better to leave well enough alone and let jobs be created where they are most needed, and let comparative advantage and the specialization of labor decide Europe's share of the robotics market.
Artificial meat isn't meat for vegetarians, you aren't the target market. It's meant for omnivores. And experience has shown that some will pay extra for perceived ethical improvements, e.g. cage-free eggs vs. battery eggs. People would also be willing to pay some amount more for artificial meat.
"The idea is that switching away from cable TV will simple make consumers more beholden to their internet connections, and removing (i.e. acquiring) the competition will let Comcast raise rates without losing customers."
Cable companies don't compete with each other, they have their own territories. There's nothing stopping them from raising rates without hypothetically losing customers now.
You cannot take the legal doctrine of disparate impact and apply it carte blanche to every other aspect of human relations. It is not a general principle, and should not be misused as such. To claim otherwise is entirely novel and requires far more than a bare assertion of its new definition.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a good thing the wealthy were the first ones to buy things like computers and cars with airbags. Oh, wait, I somehow don't have those.
I spend most of my time reading a high-quality news-heavy newspaper, and then assorted stories from various online sources. And not by visiting a media frontpage. I don't have time for clickbait, and serious well-researched stories can't be pumped out once a minute. And you're not going to understand much if all you read is news articles.
And you're just asking for retaliation for Hillary's shitposting and inflammatory memes. I don't want to see commerce imploding because no one will work or buy from anyone else. If you're going to try to screw each other over, can't you at least keep it to politics?
I haven't read the opinion, but did the court say that because non-Americans might do bad things, it's ok to strip Americans of their rights in order to prevent non-Americans from doing bad things?
You just know 13-year old boys are going to use this to look at the magazines in plastic wrappers.
I expect a Score of 5, recognition of me me me, and tons of posts to this thread glorifying me and my ideas. Which don't need to be explained, I'm on the internet!
Always seems more like the anti-SJW crowd trying to stir up the SJWs, as a form of trolling. The title is not supported by the story, the title is a troll, and the anti-SJW crowd fell for it, while the SJW crowd apparently didn't care (or perhaps are literate, and realized the title was a troll).
What are you talking about? Are you asking who trolls the trolls?
Huh, the writeup doesn't bring up the "inequality" boogeyman. Wonder how that got inro the title.
Coursera offers free course product online to consumers for many years. Coursera decides to no longer offer the free courses many years later. Users, having had free (i.e., unpaid) access to the courses for many years, courtesy of Coursera, become extremely upset when no longer given free stuff by Coursera.
Can't be allowed to cater to customers, they might actually like it.
Even if such loans are "predatory" and "harmful" to consumers, this will just increase the strength of the variables that Google sees as being predatory and harmful in the first place. It's unfortunate that, due to either ignorance or cynicism, Google is the one harming consumers the most. http://reason.com/blog/2016/05...
Just wondering if the OP claims all the deductions they're eligible for or not.
Neo-Luddites are always right. I mean, they've always been right with their predictions before, right? And surely, they fully understand economics too, because greater productivity, i.e. greater efficiency, which leads to specialization of labor, has made us all starving brutes.
And? Stop using Facebook (FB), at least for your news. FB is not the only place to find news on the internet, and its far easier to find news than bothering with FB's trending news swamp of celebrities. I suspect Gizmondo is allowing its own political biases to override the facts here; thank goodness we have innumerable news sources beyond FB and Gizmondo. Use Google Search.
First, they don't know what capitalism or socialism means, and prefer capitalism over socialism when explained in basic terms. Second, how can they focus on the flaws of the free-market when there isn't one in the first place? Admittedly, they could have studied economics and be against perceived flaws, but not knowing what capitalism or socialism is, I think almost certainly not.
Oregon has electricity rates below the median for America. Their rates are much less than I pay in California. Although in California we are almost coal free, at 0.5% of production.
What is this supposed to mean? It sets forth facts but has no conclusion.
'Comcast's actions could result in fewer online video choices for viewers nationwide, while increasing its dominance as a video gatekeeper," Bergmayer says. "If its behavior persists, prices will go up, the number of choices will go down, creators will have a harder time reaching an audience, and viewers will have a harder time accessing diverse and independent programming.' - Note active voice "Comcast's response is that Stream TV doesn't go over the internet, but is delivered over the same closed path as its cable streams, and so is exempt from the rules. It calls Stream TV a cable service, not an OTT service." - Note passive voice
There was a time when conquests could only be made if you landed on at least a tiny beach, regardless of the size of the landmass, and if anyone's already living there. Now, those grasping for ultimate control, especially so no one can be free if they escape their regimes on earth, claim what they've never touched, might not even have ever seen, and have no plans to ever visit and plant the flag on. A transparent attempt to ensure that only government can own anything at the end of the day, not individuals.
Nothing makes up for lack of a Trackpoint. Also, the article gives no evidence that Macs retain up to 50% of their value after 5 years, which is a sketchy claim, considering how fast things are improved.
The argument is not whether or not the proposal will "work." The issue is that jobs providing products and services that consumers actually want will be reduced to pay for a robotics program that consumers do not want. This proposal evinces an antimarket bias. It also has an antiforeign bias, in that it attempts to increase market share at the expense of foreigners for no apparent reason beyond base protectionism, ignoring the benefits of comparative advantage and the specialization of labor. Instead of Europe producing what it is best position to do so and satisfying consumer demand, it will be wasting jobs and resources in an attempt to "beat" disfavoured foreigners in market share in robotics.
This is another example of corporate welfare masquerading as a jobs plan, combined with protectionist sentiment. The central planners will take money out of the productive economy and spend it on a corporate giveaway to favoured interests. Jobs that otherwise would have been created in the productive sector will be lost, while only the 240,000 pork barrel jobs will be noticed by the superficial. Whether Europe is best positioned for the robotic industry will be ignored. Instead of this boondoggle, it would be better to leave well enough alone and let jobs be created where they are most needed, and let comparative advantage and the specialization of labor decide Europe's share of the robotics market.
Artificial meat isn't meat for vegetarians, you aren't the target market. It's meant for omnivores. And experience has shown that some will pay extra for perceived ethical improvements, e.g. cage-free eggs vs. battery eggs. People would also be willing to pay some amount more for artificial meat.
Cable companies don't compete with each other, they have their own territories. There's nothing stopping them from raising rates without hypothetically losing customers now.
You cannot take the legal doctrine of disparate impact and apply it carte blanche to every other aspect of human relations. It is not a general principle, and should not be misused as such. To claim otherwise is entirely novel and requires far more than a bare assertion of its new definition.
Disparate impact has no relevance to this situation, as it is not employment-related.