the lower prices you can offer your customers (at least until you've outlasted the starving competition)
Except, the competition (people) is self-renewing, so you can never "outlast" it and then start charging more than the market rate. That's why Google doesn't charge more than other ad networks, and Apple can't charge more than a reasonable premium for their phones compared to Android phones, AWS can't charge more than competing cloud providers, etc... the whole premise of a market advantage resulting in a permanent monopoly status is flawed, which is why scientists* doing economics reject it. It also helps that we have so many examples of dominant players "losing" after a time at the top, i.e. Myspace, Yahoo, etc...
Under the current rules, providers are prohibited from doing this type of call filtering.
They'd like to (they have a shared database of provisioned numbers and who they belong to), but they aren't legally allowed to and still keep their common carrier status.
This wouldn't become a service they charge extra for. They'll do it just to reduce their own expenses in customer support and complaints. How effective it will be in the end is a different matter, but it's a trivial modification to make to their systems and it provides an incentive and ability for an easily proven damaged party (if they start spoofing a real phone #s) to sue the perpetrators and enforce anti-spam measures on foreign providers.
the proposed rule is an example of good regulation
Damn Republicans, right? NY times and Huffington post should be having a conniption fit any time now about how this will make it more difficult for hard-working spammers to go to work every day...
Your random unattributed internet reference is incorrect. Even where some cities incorrectly try to call possessing a right-of-way "owning" the sidewalk to people, in a legal sense, the property still belongs to the property owner. If you look at the actual recorded deeds and maps in the recorders office, it's very easy to see the distinction. Some cities explain the distinction between owning the property and owning a right-of-way to a portion of the property very well, others fairly well, and some cities not so well, indicating whoever wrote their stuff doesn't actually understand it. For example, Champaign's web site talks about "owning" the right-of-way "property", then a couple of paragraphs later about the responsibilities of the "property owner" in that right-of-way, not meaning them.:)
The closer you get to an actual legal authority and real city or county recorders who deal with property descriptions, plat maps, easements and right-of-ways, the more you find people who actually understand the difference between the owner of the property and what a public right-of-way legally is. What it isn't is ownership of the property itself, it's the right to use the property for a specific purpose. So under various circumstances the property owner can recover the right-of-way from a city, profit from mining oil or minerals underneath it, etc... Pretty standard for a city street, the center of the right-of-way is the actual property line between property owners (they each own half the road) and the right-of-way extends 30 ft. in either direction.
If you ask a random city employee, you may be told the city "owns" the sidewalk, but if you ask a non-profit which exists to give cities and counties legal advice, you're likely to get a much more accurate answer, including legal citations. Let's not even talk about clickbait web sites who exist to get searchers to land on random "articles" like reference.com.
So yes, "It's better to check when you don't know what you're talking about." Wish more city website writers would check a little more thoroughly, but then, that's what lawyers are for, right? To be legally pedantic.;)
Sidewalks are owned by the property owner, typically, smaller roads are also. The property just has recorded against it a right-of-way for others to use the road and whatever that locality's legally mandated distance from the road is. As part of the right-of-way, people can drive over the road, walk along the edge, etc...
Cities typically legally take over responsibility for the road portion (and the road is currently usually built and paid for by the land owner at some point), but while the sidewalk is a public location for freedom of speech purposes, for example, it's still generally the responsibility of the property owner. If you are the property owner, if you don't shovel your snow and someone slips, you get sued, not the city. If you don't keep the sidewalk in good enough condition to be used, you get fined, etc...
So for the same reason you can drive without a license on your own private property, you can likely run robots across your property however you like, as long as they aren't violating some other law. Now, if you want to take advantage of the public right-of-way across someone else's property, that's a different story where you'll need to comply with the rules associated with that right-of-way.
Yeah, cable company screwing you over? Just switch providers!.Oops, New York City has a Cable Franchise Agreement giving one company a cable service monopoly. Until that sort of thing stops, there won't be much competition there. A little bit of working around that using phone infrastructure and/or wireless, but even those have similar licensing issues and/or technical issues.
But don't worry, the politicians in NYC are there looking out for the people...
Have you ever wondered why? It's because they were trying to reduce the influence of slaveholders. A default position of counting slaves as a full person for representation purposes would have led to the slaveholders (who actually voted for representation, not the slaves) controlling the federal government based on the number of slaves they held.
So the 3/5ths compromise as well as granting the power to restrict or prohibit the importation of slaves (also in the Constitution) were the Nation's first two anti-slavery measures, passed over opposition from the slave-holding States. They'd have done more, but then the slave-holding States wouldn't have ratified the Constitution in the first place, making any restrictions in it pointless.
I worked in a building numbered 2600 with a bunch of developers for a few years. One day I pointed at the massive street numbers on the side of the building and said something like, "How appropriate." None of them had any idea what I was talking about.
Most kids these days have no idea what phreaking is, what a black box is, or a blue box, etc... Don't get me started on the contents of the anarchist's cookbook.
Most of them don't know what a MUD, MUSH or MUX was or how to program one, let alone about common door games (Trade Wars was the best).
Heck, I remember key cards which worked by perforations. Really easy to duplicate with a piece of cardboard. Remember core memory? Many "technical" folks nowadays probably can't do Boolean logic and wouldn't recognize most of the symbols. let alone binary operations or PEEK'ing and POKE'ing.
Sounds like a similar concept in a lot of ways, but some of us have regulatory requirements for separation of duties which (among other things) prohibit the use of production data in test environments.
An expensive way, which is also pretty bulletproof: At least two geographically separate production environments, run in each for approximately half the year total, switching periodically which is the target DR setup and which is the Prod environment.
Then you always know your backups to your DR are working (hint: use snapshoting/versioning as well, to avoid the replicating the disaster issue), because you are periodically forced to actually use it as a real production environment. You know your switchover and switchback processes work and how long they really take, because you routinely follow them. It's not just data. In these days of Internetworking, you need to be sure your IP space, firewall rules, partner's firewall rules, routing, proxies, DDOS, VPNs, etc... will all function properly if you need to fail-over during a disaster. It also helps to go live in an environment with only a set or two of patching/upgrade cycles having passed, rather than hoping years of OS and firmware changes were also properly applied to your backup environment.
If you've never run in an environment, then you may have some hardware and such, but you don't quite have an actual environment yet.
It sounds like you prefer for them all to starve rather than be legally allowed to work. Making it illegal for someone to work in the best situation they can find isn't doing them any favors... quite the opposite.
So if someone is willing to work for less than what you decide is a living wage, you prefer to have the government forcibly prevent them from doing so and not allow them to get a job? How noble of you!
Is that because you hate poor people, or you just prefer to keep people from skills from learning enough to improve their lives, or you have some sort of interest in keeping them dependent on others?
Do you also go around telling people they can't buy stuff 3rd-worlders make so the global poor are forced to live in worse conditions?
BTW, slavery by definition is involuntary, not voluntary.
Forcibly preventing people from improving their lives by voluntarily exchanging their time/labor for income is a moral issue, but you're apparently on the wrong side of it.
I see references online for "Hawking has never been interested in how high his IQ is, but it has been estimated to be over 160.", which puts that as a lower bound, but not at 160. My IQ as tested in elementary school was over 160, so I suppose that doesn't seem super high to me. I'd guess Hawking's at much higher than 160. Without direct testing comparisons, there is a lot of "estimating" that goes on by various people, but pretty much anything over 150 is going to start getting into the realm where it tough for most people differentiate.
With./ being a gathering of (in part) stereotypical nerds, I'd imagine the IQ distribution here isn't exactly "normal", either, but I'd also expect if you had a room full of people who earned over a Billion dollars, you'll likely find some pretty smart folks there as well, otherwise why doesn't everyone do it?
an HHS pick who passed laws to specifically help his stock picks (and I don't mean made it easier to trade stocks - he bought stocks and then helped pass laws that made those company's stock prices go up)
You really think someone with a net worth of $10-15 million would spend more than 10 minutes trying to make a stock purchase worth $2600 go up? What does he have to gain, a few hundred dollars if it jumps up 20%? Seems a lot more credible that his broker picked it as part of a basket of stocks and he didn't even consciously know about it in relation to the law in question, let alone create some giant legal conspiracy to make a couple hundred dollars...
Based on his original SAT score of 1206, Bush's IQ was about 123. He also got good grades at Yale, which correlate with that as well. Also, whether or not you are defending Vietnam or Texas, or if your buddy runs the local guard air group, you still have to pass the same tests to go to and graduate from fighter pilot school in the military. Pretty sure that's what the OP was referring to.
Obama refused to release his specific school info, but we know the class average for his acceptance group of 67 was an SAT score of 1100, which would correlate to an IQ of 115, so that's the best info we have available for him.
Just because Bush spoke like a Texan, people make assumptions around intelligence based on his accent and choice of phrases, but don't let your regional prejudice override the actual facts available.
P.S. Trump's estimated IQ based on his Wharton acceptance is 156. Try not to be taken in by his carefully calculated public persona.
Which part of Canada is going to suffer even if temperatures rise a few degrees?
I'd think with the exception of a coastal area or two, they'd be trying to figure out how to emit more carbon if they actually thought it would help keep things warmer and create more usable land beyond the southern edge.
It's the opposite of humanitarian to tell poor people in other countries that our government has decided they shouldn't be able to have a job if it involves making stuff to import into the U.S.
It's always amazing to me how some people figure it's ok to force people not to trade with poor folks and improve their lives if those poor people happen to live outside their country.
You've completely missed the point. They're only comparing 29-34 year-olds with the same age.
Someone who has a degree will on average out-earn someone who doesn't over their lifetime (depending on major, as someone equally intelligent will actually out earn someone with a degree in something stupid. You have to also account for reason for not having a degree, with not smart enough not explaining them all). However, the most significant differences in salaries come from someone's first year in a job to about 5-10 years, after which increases tend to level off more until the difference between 15 years experience and 20 years experience may be virtually nothing, percentage-wise.
As a result, if your first year in the job market 4-10 years later (i.e. post-degree, including advanced degrees), while you may make more money in the long term, you are unlikely to start at your entry-level-fresh-from-college job making much more than someone who has those years actually doing a job. If you dropped out of college, then your start is likely to be even worse. At the bottom end, if you were 29 and still in college (which some are), then it should be obvious that you are likely earning much less at that age than someone who has been working full time for up to 10 years already.
If they are comparing salaries for the same age, then if more people are spending longer in college, that will delay their entrance into the workforce, putting them close to entry level salaries and thus drive the average down.
In other words, there is no mystery about this, the answer is in the rest of the summary where they say they're staying in school longer. Just replace "even though" with "because" towards the end.
Also, as you imply, it's not like they're graduating after those extra years with more knowledge to get paid for at their entry level job which now requires a degree (but probably didn't years before), so the net effect is to just delay the start of their earnings.
A better comparison would be to compare "just left college" people to each other, or "just started working", rather than using age.
You're thinking what they were once worth to collectors as a rarity, not of their worth as currency.
From the article: "In 2009 the government scrapped the currency, leaving US dollars and South African rand as the main notes and coins in circulation. To this day, Zimbabwe still has no currency of its own, although the government last year offered to swap old deposit accounts into US dollars, giving savers $5 for each 175 quadrillion (175,000,000,000,000,000) Zimbabwean dollars."
So as currency you can maybe get $5 for 175,000 of your trillion denomination notes now....
The zimbawbe hundred trillion dollar note has gone down by over 1500%!
Fixed that for you. You're thinking of deflation, not inflation. Bitcoin is gaining in value relative to other currencies and commodities. The Zimbabwean currency is losing value.
Naw, the government would make that illegal. Can't have anyone profiteering on a disaster after all! People are required to just suffer with whatever emergency supplies are already in the area rather than pay a higher price for someone to hurry up and bring some in.
Yep, the answer economists on the left and the right (not really a partisan issue for once) give for lack of affordable housing in places like SF and NYC are zoning and rent control laws.
So the answer is simple. If the people who reside there want to fix the problem, just vote out the people writing those laws and replace them with people who will get rid of them. Then the problem will fix itself.
Of course, if most of the people there prefer super-high housing costs/prices, then you end up with what you have now, people artificially priced out of the market for housing because lower cost options are literally banned by the government.
Well, at least now that Trump has been elected the left-wing sites all care about privacy from government officials again. So that and the sudden new interest in hard-hitting investigative journalism about the post January 20th executive branch in the media should help a little bit.
Slashdot Mirror
Except, the competition (people) is self-renewing, so you can never "outlast" it and then start charging more than the market rate. That's why Google doesn't charge more than other ad networks, and Apple can't charge more than a reasonable premium for their phones compared to Android phones, AWS can't charge more than competing cloud providers, etc... the whole premise of a market advantage resulting in a permanent monopoly status is flawed, which is why scientists* doing economics reject it. It also helps that we have so many examples of dominant players "losing" after a time at the top, i.e. Myspace, Yahoo, etc...
Under the current rules, providers are prohibited from doing this type of call filtering.
They'd like to (they have a shared database of provisioned numbers and who they belong to), but they aren't legally allowed to and still keep their common carrier status.
This wouldn't become a service they charge extra for. They'll do it just to reduce their own expenses in customer support and complaints. How effective it will be in the end is a different matter, but it's a trivial modification to make to their systems and it provides an incentive and ability for an easily proven damaged party (if they start spoofing a real phone #s) to sue the perpetrators and enforce anti-spam measures on foreign providers.
Damn Republicans, right? NY times and Huffington post should be having a conniption fit any time now about how this will make it more difficult for hard-working spammers to go to work every day...
Your random unattributed internet reference is incorrect. Even where some cities incorrectly try to call possessing a right-of-way "owning" the sidewalk to people, in a legal sense, the property still belongs to the property owner. If you look at the actual recorded deeds and maps in the recorders office, it's very easy to see the distinction. Some cities explain the distinction between owning the property and owning a right-of-way to a portion of the property very well, others fairly well, and some cities not so well, indicating whoever wrote their stuff doesn't actually understand it. For example, Champaign's web site talks about "owning" the right-of-way "property", then a couple of paragraphs later about the responsibilities of the "property owner" in that right-of-way, not meaning them. :)
The closer you get to an actual legal authority and real city or county recorders who deal with property descriptions, plat maps, easements and right-of-ways, the more you find people who actually understand the difference between the owner of the property and what a public right-of-way legally is. What it isn't is ownership of the property itself, it's the right to use the property for a specific purpose. So under various circumstances the property owner can recover the right-of-way from a city, profit from mining oil or minerals underneath it, etc... Pretty standard for a city street, the center of the right-of-way is the actual property line between property owners (they each own half the road) and the right-of-way extends 30 ft. in either direction.
If you ask a random city employee, you may be told the city "owns" the sidewalk, but if you ask a non-profit which exists to give cities and counties legal advice, you're likely to get a much more accurate answer, including legal citations. Let's not even talk about clickbait web sites who exist to get searchers to land on random "articles" like reference.com.
So yes, "It's better to check when you don't know what you're talking about." Wish more city website writers would check a little more thoroughly, but then, that's what lawyers are for, right? To be legally pedantic. ;)
Sidewalks are owned by the property owner, typically, smaller roads are also. The property just has recorded against it a right-of-way for others to use the road and whatever that locality's legally mandated distance from the road is. As part of the right-of-way, people can drive over the road, walk along the edge, etc...
Cities typically legally take over responsibility for the road portion (and the road is currently usually built and paid for by the land owner at some point), but while the sidewalk is a public location for freedom of speech purposes, for example, it's still generally the responsibility of the property owner. If you are the property owner, if you don't shovel your snow and someone slips, you get sued, not the city. If you don't keep the sidewalk in good enough condition to be used, you get fined, etc...
So for the same reason you can drive without a license on your own private property, you can likely run robots across your property however you like, as long as they aren't violating some other law. Now, if you want to take advantage of the public right-of-way across someone else's property, that's a different story where you'll need to comply with the rules associated with that right-of-way.
Yeah, cable company screwing you over? Just switch providers!.Oops, New York City has a Cable Franchise Agreement giving one company a cable service monopoly. Until that sort of thing stops, there won't be much competition there. A little bit of working around that using phone infrastructure and/or wireless, but even those have similar licensing issues and/or technical issues.
But don't worry, the politicians in NYC are there looking out for the people...
Have you ever wondered why? It's because they were trying to reduce the influence of slaveholders. A default position of counting slaves as a full person for representation purposes would have led to the slaveholders (who actually voted for representation, not the slaves) controlling the federal government based on the number of slaves they held.
So the 3/5ths compromise as well as granting the power to restrict or prohibit the importation of slaves (also in the Constitution) were the Nation's first two anti-slavery measures, passed over opposition from the slave-holding States. They'd have done more, but then the slave-holding States wouldn't have ratified the Constitution in the first place, making any restrictions in it pointless.
I worked in a building numbered 2600 with a bunch of developers for a few years. One day I pointed at the massive street numbers on the side of the building and said something like, "How appropriate." None of them had any idea what I was talking about.
Most kids these days have no idea what phreaking is, what a black box is, or a blue box, etc... Don't get me started on the contents of the anarchist's cookbook.
Most of them don't know what a MUD, MUSH or MUX was or how to program one, let alone about common door games (Trade Wars was the best).
Heck, I remember key cards which worked by perforations. Really easy to duplicate with a piece of cardboard. Remember core memory? Many "technical" folks nowadays probably can't do Boolean logic and wouldn't recognize most of the symbols. let alone binary operations or PEEK'ing and POKE'ing.
Thanks guys, now I'm starting to feel old. :)
Sounds like a similar concept in a lot of ways, but some of us have regulatory requirements for separation of duties which (among other things) prohibit the use of production data in test environments.
An expensive way, which is also pretty bulletproof:
At least two geographically separate production environments, run in each for approximately half the year total, switching periodically which is the target DR setup and which is the Prod environment.
Then you always know your backups to your DR are working (hint: use snapshoting/versioning as well, to avoid the replicating the disaster issue), because you are periodically forced to actually use it as a real production environment. You know your switchover and switchback processes work and how long they really take, because you routinely follow them. It's not just data. In these days of Internetworking, you need to be sure your IP space, firewall rules, partner's firewall rules, routing, proxies, DDOS, VPNs, etc... will all function properly if you need to fail-over during a disaster. It also helps to go live in an environment with only a set or two of patching/upgrade cycles having passed, rather than hoping years of OS and firmware changes were also properly applied to your backup environment.
If you've never run in an environment, then you may have some hardware and such, but you don't quite have an actual environment yet.
It sounds like you prefer for them all to starve rather than be legally allowed to work. Making it illegal for someone to work in the best situation they can find isn't doing them any favors... quite the opposite.
So if someone is willing to work for less than what you decide is a living wage, you prefer to have the government forcibly prevent them from doing so and not allow them to get a job? How noble of you!
Is that because you hate poor people, or you just prefer to keep people from skills from learning enough to improve their lives, or you have some sort of interest in keeping them dependent on others?
Do you also go around telling people they can't buy stuff 3rd-worlders make so the global poor are forced to live in worse conditions?
BTW, slavery by definition is involuntary, not voluntary.
Forcibly preventing people from improving their lives by voluntarily exchanging their time/labor for income is a moral issue, but you're apparently on the wrong side of it.
I see references online for "Hawking has never been interested in how high his IQ is, but it has been estimated to be over 160.", which puts that as a lower bound, but not at 160. My IQ as tested in elementary school was over 160, so I suppose that doesn't seem super high to me. I'd guess Hawking's at much higher than 160. Without direct testing comparisons, there is a lot of "estimating" that goes on by various people, but pretty much anything over 150 is going to start getting into the realm where it tough for most people differentiate.
With ./ being a gathering of (in part) stereotypical nerds, I'd imagine the IQ distribution here isn't exactly "normal", either, but I'd also expect if you had a room full of people who earned over a Billion dollars, you'll likely find some pretty smart folks there as well, otherwise why doesn't everyone do it?
You really think someone with a net worth of $10-15 million would spend more than 10 minutes trying to make a stock purchase worth $2600 go up? What does he have to gain, a few hundred dollars if it jumps up 20%? Seems a lot more credible that his broker picked it as part of a basket of stocks and he didn't even consciously know about it in relation to the law in question, let alone create some giant legal conspiracy to make a couple hundred dollars...
Based on his original SAT score of 1206, Bush's IQ was about 123. He also got good grades at Yale, which correlate with that as well. Also, whether or not you are defending Vietnam or Texas, or if your buddy runs the local guard air group, you still have to pass the same tests to go to and graduate from fighter pilot school in the military. Pretty sure that's what the OP was referring to.
Obama refused to release his specific school info, but we know the class average for his acceptance group of 67 was an SAT score of 1100, which would correlate to an IQ of 115, so that's the best info we have available for him.
Just because Bush spoke like a Texan, people make assumptions around intelligence based on his accent and choice of phrases, but don't let your regional prejudice override the actual facts available.
P.S. Trump's estimated IQ based on his Wharton acceptance is 156. Try not to be taken in by his carefully calculated public persona.
Which part of Canada is going to suffer even if temperatures rise a few degrees?
I'd think with the exception of a coastal area or two, they'd be trying to figure out how to emit more carbon if they actually thought it would help keep things warmer and create more usable land beyond the southern edge.
It's the opposite of humanitarian to tell poor people in other countries that our government has decided they shouldn't be able to have a job if it involves making stuff to import into the U.S.
It's always amazing to me how some people figure it's ok to force people not to trade with poor folks and improve their lives if those poor people happen to live outside their country.
You've completely missed the point. They're only comparing 29-34 year-olds with the same age.
Someone who has a degree will on average out-earn someone who doesn't over their lifetime (depending on major, as someone equally intelligent will actually out earn someone with a degree in something stupid. You have to also account for reason for not having a degree, with not smart enough not explaining them all). However, the most significant differences in salaries come from someone's first year in a job to about 5-10 years, after which increases tend to level off more until the difference between 15 years experience and 20 years experience may be virtually nothing, percentage-wise.
As a result, if your first year in the job market 4-10 years later (i.e. post-degree, including advanced degrees), while you may make more money in the long term, you are unlikely to start at your entry-level-fresh-from-college job making much more than someone who has those years actually doing a job. If you dropped out of college, then your start is likely to be even worse. At the bottom end, if you were 29 and still in college (which some are), then it should be obvious that you are likely earning much less at that age than someone who has been working full time for up to 10 years already.
If they are comparing salaries for the same age, then if more people are spending longer in college, that will delay their entrance into the workforce, putting them close to entry level salaries and thus drive the average down.
In other words, there is no mystery about this, the answer is in the rest of the summary where they say they're staying in school longer. Just replace "even though" with "because" towards the end.
Also, as you imply, it's not like they're graduating after those extra years with more knowledge to get paid for at their entry level job which now requires a degree (but probably didn't years before), so the net effect is to just delay the start of their earnings.
A better comparison would be to compare "just left college" people to each other, or "just started working", rather than using age.
You're thinking what they were once worth to collectors as a rarity, not of their worth as currency.
From the article:
"In 2009 the government scrapped the currency, leaving US dollars and South African rand as the main notes and coins in circulation. To this day, Zimbabwe still has no currency of its own, although the government last year offered to swap old deposit accounts into US dollars, giving savers $5 for each 175 quadrillion (175,000,000,000,000,000) Zimbabwean dollars."
So as currency you can maybe get $5 for 175,000 of your trillion denomination notes now....
Fixed that for you. You're thinking of deflation, not inflation. Bitcoin is gaining in value relative to other currencies and commodities. The Zimbabwean currency is losing value.
Naw, the government would make that illegal. Can't have anyone profiteering on a disaster after all! People are required to just suffer with whatever emergency supplies are already in the area rather than pay a higher price for someone to hurry up and bring some in.
Yep, the answer economists on the left and the right (not really a partisan issue for once) give for lack of affordable housing in places like SF and NYC are zoning and rent control laws.
So the answer is simple. If the people who reside there want to fix the problem, just vote out the people writing those laws and replace them with people who will get rid of them. Then the problem will fix itself.
Of course, if most of the people there prefer super-high housing costs/prices, then you end up with what you have now, people artificially priced out of the market for housing because lower cost options are literally banned by the government.
So FL is like AZ, which is where Uber already loaded up their cars and drove to?
This seems too little, too late, when the cars have already been unloaded from their trailers in AZ....
Well, at least now that Trump has been elected the left-wing sites all care about privacy from government officials again. So that and the sudden new interest in hard-hitting investigative journalism about the post January 20th executive branch in the media should help a little bit.