No, they're going to tell certain people that they like them, by giving them discounts.
No discount doesn't mean you're a jerk, it just means you haven't made enough of the right impression to get a discount. Those are two very different things. You'd think the people who get off on being insensitive won't care, and those who really do care might change their behavior.
For one thing, you don't have to sell stock to use it. You can borrow against its value and, if you have enough, can essentially do so indefinitely.
It's also taxed at capital gains rates if it's sold, which are much lower than standard income tax rates (15% maximum under US law currently for investments held for at least a year). Capital gains can also be offset by tax losses, which can carry forward forever, or through structured sales.
Nearly all of those "other countries" have a system partially or significantly different than single member plurality for national body elections.
The only way that election system will change in the US is through massive disruption of society in some way or other. The system has no way of changing the election method incorporated into it incrementally, and it is too large to come to consensus to change it wholesale. The only other countries of comparable size and scope don't show any sign of that societal upheaval, and they've had it a lot worse for a lot longer.
Poor impulse control ends in mid-20's, so if you have graduated from college, you are supposed to get that for free, along with growing out of frat house mentality if you had one to begin with.
I wish that had been my experience with anyone under about the age of 30. Impulse control is better than the teenage years, but I wouldn't go so far as to say poor impulse control ends there.
Alright. Given the nature of many people posting on/., that would have constituted a seriously baited question, especially given the affiliations of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.
As for lefts supporting the end of the Drug War, I don't keep up much with them, but I would imagine there are dozens of Greens (left equivalent of Paul and Johnson, for those who don't understand Nolan classifications) who want it ended. Probably more than don't, if I had to guess (which, not staying familiar with current members, I do).
I do understand that, absent a very few (Paul being the only current national officeholder I know of offhand), there is no support for ending the drug war on either side. There are certainly outliers who are interested in allowing personal choice, but almost invariably they advocate restricting other things which other people believe should be personal choice. That was really my point: neither left nor right are really about freedom of choice, they're only about freedom of certain choices.
Keep turning that "Will you enter this legally binding agreement in order to do me a favor that likely won't pay you a dime, even when you have other, paying engagements to devote your time to?" down, you're making America stronger in the process.
Ideas which make lots of money with little investment in time or money are usually either illegal or unethical, and as commonly are the former for very good reason.
That particular definition of "good idea" isn't worth the breath wasted to define it.
When an NDA doesn't specify topic, you could be setting yourself up to not use ideas you already have.
An NDA which blanket covers idea pitches, without even hinting at the topic of those ideas, is incredibly dangerous.
To have random person X hit you up for advice because you're well-known, without clearly outlining the topic and scope before signing anything, is just asking to be hammered in court.
This pretty much sums up this particular point: Overlap in innovations and concepts found among disparate parts of the web is ubiquitous. Any agreement that I sign to not disclose or use information shared with me in a casual engagement opens up a whole world of potentially contentious confusion about what is or isn’t okay for me to do in the future.
A vote alone, without quantity to back it up, is worthless. The larger the system, the more the "accountability" you speak of is relegated to existence only in theory.
Given the names you listed, you're going to have to post an in-depth description of what defines right and left wing before I'll even consider taking that bait.
The likelihood of one being greater than the other is irrelevant. I judge them each by their own merits, and don't stand in defense of all when an argument of wrongdoing is leveled at one. A knee-jerk reaction to see an indictment of specific behavior as an attack on an entire sector is irrational and counter-productive, in much the same way that using specific bad acts as a means to condemn an entire sector is irrational and counter-productive. Both are also too bloody common.
That said, finding links to organized crime or evidence of corruption is not that difficult in many cases, much like finding employer abuses is not that difficult in many cases.
It should be extended to "young people are inherently stupid." Part of being young is frequently not knowing any better and/or not having adequate impulse control. The only real gender differences are some types of stupid behavior engaged in.
To be fair, that case was about style and subject, not just subject. An identically-staged photo in full color, black and white, or basically any other color treatment but "black and white, with red bus" would not have been infringing. That's not to say I agree that the staging should be subject to copyright, but that is the law as it currently stands.
I guess, one could pump to water out faster then it flows in, and cause a collapse [...]
Got it in one. As for water table flow, it's irrelevant so long as the structures are filled. The quantity of water is what provides geologic support, even if it's in motion. Depletion may happen sooner or later anyway, but human-caused depletion occurs in a relatively short time frame, whereas natural depletion operates in geologic time (hundreds of thousands of years or greater). The two scales are not comparable in regards to this particular issue, at least not in any rational way.
There are actually only a handful of entities which sit on large hoards of cash (the largest non-governmental organization being Apple). If you're referring to banks, the problem wasn't hoarding cash but rather the short-circuiting of the credit cycle on which the US (and much of the world) economy is currently dependent by not extending new credit.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they're going to tell certain people that they like them, by giving them discounts.
No discount doesn't mean you're a jerk, it just means you haven't made enough of the right impression to get a discount. Those are two very different things. You'd think the people who get off on being insensitive won't care, and those who really do care might change their behavior.
I heartily endorse this if every one is mandated to be run in deathmatch mode.
Here's a case study: want to see how Authoritarianism can destroy something? Look at the Olympics.
The IOC is about as anti-competitive an entity as you can get, which is ironic given that their business is putting on competitions.
It doesn't even require the sane ones to move away. The crazies outbreed the sane ones, so the downward spiral gets faster every year.
Should I be able to sue Bieber because he entices my child to buy his albums?
Ideally, no, but it's preferable to the world we live in now where it's illegal to use deadly force against such forcible aural assault.</joke>
For one thing, you don't have to sell stock to use it. You can borrow against its value and, if you have enough, can essentially do so indefinitely.
It's also taxed at capital gains rates if it's sold, which are much lower than standard income tax rates (15% maximum under US law currently for investments held for at least a year). Capital gains can also be offset by tax losses, which can carry forward forever, or through structured sales.
That's probably the best answer he could have given under the circumstances, though I can understand why he was loathe to give it.
I'll amend that: Russia is starting to show the signs. We'll see how that goes.
Nearly all of those "other countries" have a system partially or significantly different than single member plurality for national body elections.
The only way that election system will change in the US is through massive disruption of society in some way or other. The system has no way of changing the election method incorporated into it incrementally, and it is too large to come to consensus to change it wholesale. The only other countries of comparable size and scope don't show any sign of that societal upheaval, and they've had it a lot worse for a lot longer.
And therein is the lie exposed:
Aggregate
Poor impulse control ends in mid-20's, so if you have graduated from college, you are supposed to get that for free, along with growing out of frat house mentality if you had one to begin with.
I wish that had been my experience with anyone under about the age of 30. Impulse control is better than the teenage years, but I wouldn't go so far as to say poor impulse control ends there.
Alright. Given the nature of many people posting on /., that would have constituted a seriously baited question, especially given the affiliations of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.
As for lefts supporting the end of the Drug War, I don't keep up much with them, but I would imagine there are dozens of Greens (left equivalent of Paul and Johnson, for those who don't understand Nolan classifications) who want it ended. Probably more than don't, if I had to guess (which, not staying familiar with current members, I do).
I do understand that, absent a very few (Paul being the only current national officeholder I know of offhand), there is no support for ending the drug war on either side. There are certainly outliers who are interested in allowing personal choice, but almost invariably they advocate restricting other things which other people believe should be personal choice. That was really my point: neither left nor right are really about freedom of choice, they're only about freedom of certain choices.
Keep turning that "Will you enter this legally binding agreement in order to do me a favor that likely won't pay you a dime, even when you have other, paying engagements to devote your time to?" down, you're making America stronger in the process.
Then the world is built on bad ideas.
Ideas which make lots of money with little investment in time or money are usually either illegal or unethical, and as commonly are the former for very good reason.
That particular definition of "good idea" isn't worth the breath wasted to define it.
When an NDA doesn't specify topic, you could be setting yourself up to not use ideas you already have.
An NDA which blanket covers idea pitches, without even hinting at the topic of those ideas, is incredibly dangerous.
To have random person X hit you up for advice because you're well-known, without clearly outlining the topic and scope before signing anything, is just asking to be hammered in court.
This pretty much sums up this particular point:
Overlap in innovations and concepts found among disparate parts of the web is ubiquitous. Any agreement that I sign to not disclose or use information shared with me in a casual engagement opens up a whole world of potentially contentious confusion about what is or isn’t okay for me to do in the future.
I hear they're "the way things work" in the US... big difference in mentality I think
You would be wrong. They've been illegal in the USA since 1935.
If you bring your own soda from home, YOU HATE AMERICA.
I can't wait until movie theaters pick up that line.
A vote alone, without quantity to back it up, is worthless. The larger the system, the more the "accountability" you speak of is relegated to existence only in theory.
Given the names you listed, you're going to have to post an in-depth description of what defines right and left wing before I'll even consider taking that bait.
The likelihood of one being greater than the other is irrelevant. I judge them each by their own merits, and don't stand in defense of all when an argument of wrongdoing is leveled at one. A knee-jerk reaction to see an indictment of specific behavior as an attack on an entire sector is irrational and counter-productive, in much the same way that using specific bad acts as a means to condemn an entire sector is irrational and counter-productive. Both are also too bloody common.
That said, finding links to organized crime or evidence of corruption is not that difficult in many cases, much like finding employer abuses is not that difficult in many cases.
It should be extended to "young people are inherently stupid." Part of being young is frequently not knowing any better and/or not having adequate impulse control. The only real gender differences are some types of stupid behavior engaged in.
To be fair, that case was about style and subject, not just subject. An identically-staged photo in full color, black and white, or basically any other color treatment but "black and white, with red bus" would not have been infringing. That's not to say I agree that the staging should be subject to copyright, but that is the law as it currently stands.
I guess, one could pump to water out faster then it flows in, and cause a collapse [...]
Got it in one. As for water table flow, it's irrelevant so long as the structures are filled. The quantity of water is what provides geologic support, even if it's in motion. Depletion may happen sooner or later anyway, but human-caused depletion occurs in a relatively short time frame, whereas natural depletion operates in geologic time (hundreds of thousands of years or greater). The two scales are not comparable in regards to this particular issue, at least not in any rational way.
It happens.
http://amandabauer.blogspot.com/2010/06/guatemala-sinkhole.html
There are actually only a handful of entities which sit on large hoards of cash (the largest non-governmental organization being Apple). If you're referring to banks, the problem wasn't hoarding cash but rather the short-circuiting of the credit cycle on which the US (and much of the world) economy is currently dependent by not extending new credit.