Who cares if Microsoft can claim an extra 5%? Do such stats ever influence companies choosing a platform?
You're...you're kidding, right? That wouldn't even crack the top 100 of dumbest reasons to choose a platform. That would come just behind "What color is the server rack?".
In some states, services and other non-tangible items can still be taxed. So if you're not charging for software but charging for support, then you could be taxed on that.
Yeah, most states do. It's called "income tax." Worse, this would be self-employment income. So you can say hello to paying Fed,State,and Local taxes, as well as both the employer and employee shares of Social Security taxes. So, to save 5% sales tax, the guy just earned himself ~40% taxes. Smooth.
Of course, if he lives in a non-income-tax state, ignore the above.
So the most environmentally smart thing to do is to burn all the oil now! so that China/India can't afford it!
It's counterintuitive, but it may be true. The oil will all be burned eventually. Wouldn't you rather it were done using efficient equipment?
Really, your oil price analysis is just wrongheaded. Some drop in oil prices may be expected if the USA cuts back but that is insignificant compared to the other forces driving the growth in China/India's demand for energy.
Proof that it's 'wrongheaded?' That sounds like a word one uses when one doesn't like a conclusion, but can't come up with a counterargument. China and India will grow, yes, but we want them to grow under a scheme with high prices for fossil fuels to encourage them to start doing things efficiently. Right now, they're not. Handing them the gift of cheaper fossil fuel prices is a really bad idea.
So offer a superior alternative, or cut the faux environmentalist crap. Politics is the art of the possible, and Kyoto is the first small, possible step.
Talk about crap, "Politics is the art of the possible?" What bumper did you read that off of? Slogans don't mean shit, and willing something into existence doesn't make it so. Kyoto isn't a *step* to anything. Kyoto doesn't work. I'm not going to support it simply because there's nothing else. The sooner that everyone abandons the failed Kyoto experiment, the sooner something better can be built. In other words, Kyoto's a step in the wrong direction.
Basically, I'm in favor of policy that *works*, not just doing something for the sake of doing it so we can all feel like great people who made a difference.
And it doesn't matter if *I* offer an alternative, oddly enough, politicians don't listen to me. For what it's worth, my alternative would be to sink enormous funding into real alternative energy sources. I'd favor nuclear, but the NIMBY morons won't let that happen. I'd offer to run nuclear plants in non-hostile countries at cost. There are sensible ways to reduce pollution, but Kyoto ain't it. Bottom line, if the plan is worse than the status quo - and it is - I don't need a counterplan.
The question is, Kyoto or no Kyoto? I say no, since it does damned near nothing and has the potential for serious negative consequences. It also doesn't include at least half of the world's population. A market with different players playing by different rules is braindead.
but if you think the single largest producer of CO2 cutting back presents "no improvements" regardless of what any other country does (unless you're positing that China and India will increase their CO2 production enough to offset American cutbacks, but ONLY if America makes those cutbacks) is just retarded.
Drop in the bucket. Also, Mr. Free Market Capitalist, you forgot to take into account that if the West reduces its consumption of fossil fuels, it will reduce the price of them, encouraging China/India to use MORE of them. And, since they tend to use less efficient equipment, one could make a rather compelling argument that Kyoto will actually do environmental harm. Even if I were to grant the minimal gains, the question is whether it's worth destroying the American economy, and I posit that it's not. This thing has to be done with everyone on board or it won't work.
I'd agree that Kyoto doesn't go far enough, but implementing it would certainly be better than nothing.
I've never subscribed to the "better than nothing" theory. I think foolish action is often worse than inaction. I'm in favor of environmental policy that is for more than just show. Kyoto is crap.
Are you going to argue that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty should be scrapped because it allows the US and Russia to keep building nuclear weapons, and therefore using it to stop Iran to do so isn't worth doing?
Really poor analogy, since there's not a free market for nukes like there is for energy. Also, note how well that treaty's working now?
Well boo fucking hoo. America would -- shock -- have to care! And, like, not shit on the rest of the world, but take a bit of shit _from_ the rest of the world.
Cry me a river.
Oh, we're not crying, we're ignoring you. I'm an environmentalist, but Kyoto is a retarded scheme that results in 1) no improvements given it ignores the two biggest countries in the world, and 2) large cash donations to Russia. It's stupid, it won't work, it isn't working. When you get a better plan, let us know.
Today, after 230 years of case law, that is mostly the case, back then it was the complete opposite.
OK, if case law is the argument, then the case is easy to make: would one rely on law from the 1600s as a relevant comparison? Doubtful. And this isn't a matter of case law, this is a matter of an actual *statute* which does *not* exist in American law.
Put it this way - show me the last time someone successfully used a British statute from the 17th century as valid case law in America.
The consitution was written in English, using the English legal tradition and standard English meanings.
English language != English law
When they wrote the word "judge" the meant a judge as understood in the british system.
The American legal system is spelled out sufficiently without invoking British law. 'Judge' is a noun, and the concept goes back well before the British legal system. One need not invoke British law to know what a judge is, either.
When they wrote the word trial, they meant a trial as understood in the british system.
I don't see that at all, the concept is also generic and well known pretty much universally.
In other words, every unstated assumption is to be resolved using the customs, practices and semantics of the day, which were, lo-and-behold the British customs.
Of the day, yes. However, that doesn't freeze and codify whatever was unstated and assumed in 1792. Otherwise, we'd have some very strange legal issues today regarding things like burning witches. Since this is 2006, one could say that unstated assumptions should be judged using 2006 customs.
Or one could stop trying to read tea leaves and actually interpret what's written down, which was quite clearly Jefferson's intent, from his own writings on the matter.
Excellent objection. But may I add there is no rule against using "Rosie O'Donnel" and "hog" in the same sentence.
Actually, the pork lobby might object on the grounds that you're defamating their product. You might have a lawsuit on your hands, like when the beef lobby sued Oprah.
There's a school of thought (Justice Scalia seems to be the most prominent member of it) that says American common law includes British common prior to 1792 (I think that's the year). It probably won't matter much here, most contract law is statutory and is done under the Uniform Commercial Code (or whatever variant of it that a state has adopted), which has specific rules regarding what constitutes a contract.
W. T. F.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what what the Constitution's authors would have wanted. Right. Talk about bench legislation, that's absolutely ridiculous.
In my day, we had to download linux onto floppy disks over a 2400 baud modem connection. We'd start downloading 5 hours before we went to bed, eat a cup of cold gravel, work 32 hours down the mine, and when we got home our fathers would whip us within an inch of our lives, and then if we were lucky, the download was finished.
Really? When your tormentors upload a video that becomes a viral-meme on the net of any of your embarassing moments...give me a call, I'll find you a lawyer.
OK, sure. The question is, how much of this is actually worth damages? If you want to give me $350,000 - which would pay off my frigging *house* - I'll dance around with a light saber *naked* and let you upload it wherever the hell you want. I'd give the kid $10 and tell him to stop whining and grow up.
I would almost guarantee that somewhere between 10-90% of all kids in High School go through worse. I mean, an actual physical assault doesn't generally get you $350,000. The amount awarded is stupid.
No, I got physically harassed by people I actually knew. Who gives a shit what the 10,000 people you don't know think? There's 10,000 people on here. If I make fun of you, are you entitled to 350,000? That's ridiculous.
People are too damned whiny. Shit happens. Life sucks. People are mean. Get over it, it's just words.
I think that if the citizens of a town really want to finance this boondoggle (it isn't being provided freely by Earthlink and Google right?), let them do it.
R.T.F.A.
They basically did not entirely madate it, but they did not outlaw neutrality either
You're either a good troll or a moron. How would one outlaw net neutrality? Require companies to charge different rates for traffic of their competitors? Would these be random rates?
I don't even like the term transitional form. It seems to imply that there is a set goal of evolution, that the species is making the transition from this form to that form. In reality, going all the way back to our earliest ancestors you won't find a parent which was a different species than its offspring (some very special cases exist though, but typically never). Everything is a transitional form, from what its ancestors were to what its progeny will become.
It makes sense in the context that (presumably) this critter was probably living during a time of rapid evolution, in which it had sprung strong morphological differences from a rather stable group of animals (fish). It had not yet developed a form that was well-adapted to a stable environment (land animals) that would allow its evolution to slow down. This is probably because its environment was also rapidly changing. From the articles, it sounds like it was living in shallow seas or lakes, which dry up pretty frequently. That's part of the reason these so-called "transitional forms" are so hard to find - they generally don't exist for long.
Slashdot Mirror
It wouldn't be impossible to have a barebones client for laptops that lets you work offline, and then sync the changes later.
There's also nothing in the constitution that says journalists have blanket legal immunity.
This should get kicked by the SC like prior attempts to do the same...hopefully.
Seriously. I have yet to understand why journalists are expected to have complete legal immunity.
You're...you're kidding, right? That wouldn't even crack the top 100 of dumbest reasons to choose a platform. That would come just behind "What color is the server rack?".
Yeah, most states do. It's called "income tax." Worse, this would be self-employment income. So you can say hello to paying Fed,State,and Local taxes, as well as both the employer and employee shares of Social Security taxes. So, to save 5% sales tax, the guy just earned himself ~40% taxes. Smooth.
Of course, if he lives in a non-income-tax state, ignore the above.
It's counterintuitive, but it may be true. The oil will all be burned eventually. Wouldn't you rather it were done using efficient equipment?
Really, your oil price analysis is just wrongheaded. Some drop in oil prices may be expected if the USA cuts back but that is insignificant compared to the other forces driving the growth in China/India's demand for energy.
Proof that it's 'wrongheaded?' That sounds like a word one uses when one doesn't like a conclusion, but can't come up with a counterargument. China and India will grow, yes, but we want them to grow under a scheme with high prices for fossil fuels to encourage them to start doing things efficiently. Right now, they're not. Handing them the gift of cheaper fossil fuel prices is a really bad idea.
So offer a superior alternative, or cut the faux environmentalist crap. Politics is the art of the possible, and Kyoto is the first small, possible step.
Talk about crap, "Politics is the art of the possible?" What bumper did you read that off of? Slogans don't mean shit, and willing something into existence doesn't make it so. Kyoto isn't a *step* to anything. Kyoto doesn't work. I'm not going to support it simply because there's nothing else. The sooner that everyone abandons the failed Kyoto experiment, the sooner something better can be built. In other words, Kyoto's a step in the wrong direction.
Basically, I'm in favor of policy that *works*, not just doing something for the sake of doing it so we can all feel like great people who made a difference.
And it doesn't matter if *I* offer an alternative, oddly enough, politicians don't listen to me. For what it's worth, my alternative would be to sink enormous funding into real alternative energy sources. I'd favor nuclear, but the NIMBY morons won't let that happen. I'd offer to run nuclear plants in non-hostile countries at cost. There are sensible ways to reduce pollution, but Kyoto ain't it. Bottom line, if the plan is worse than the status quo - and it is - I don't need a counterplan.
The question is, Kyoto or no Kyoto? I say no, since it does damned near nothing and has the potential for serious negative consequences. It also doesn't include at least half of the world's population. A market with different players playing by different rules is braindead.
Drop in the bucket. Also, Mr. Free Market Capitalist, you forgot to take into account that if the West reduces its consumption of fossil fuels, it will reduce the price of them, encouraging China/India to use MORE of them. And, since they tend to use less efficient equipment, one could make a rather compelling argument that Kyoto will actually do environmental harm. Even if I were to grant the minimal gains, the question is whether it's worth destroying the American economy, and I posit that it's not. This thing has to be done with everyone on board or it won't work.
I'd agree that Kyoto doesn't go far enough, but implementing it would certainly be better than nothing.
I've never subscribed to the "better than nothing" theory. I think foolish action is often worse than inaction. I'm in favor of environmental policy that is for more than just show. Kyoto is crap.
Are you going to argue that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty should be scrapped because it allows the US and Russia to keep building nuclear weapons, and therefore using it to stop Iran to do so isn't worth doing?
Really poor analogy, since there's not a free market for nukes like there is for energy. Also, note how well that treaty's working now?
That assumes they had value. *rimshot*
Oh, we're not crying, we're ignoring you. I'm an environmentalist, but Kyoto is a retarded scheme that results in 1) no improvements given it ignores the two biggest countries in the world, and 2) large cash donations to Russia. It's stupid, it won't work, it isn't working. When you get a better plan, let us know.
OK, if case law is the argument, then the case is easy to make: would one rely on law from the 1600s as a relevant comparison? Doubtful. And this isn't a matter of case law, this is a matter of an actual *statute* which does *not* exist in American law.
Put it this way - show me the last time someone successfully used a British statute from the 17th century as valid case law in America.
English language != English law
When they wrote the word "judge" the meant a judge as understood in the british system.
The American legal system is spelled out sufficiently without invoking British law. 'Judge' is a noun, and the concept goes back well before the British legal system. One need not invoke British law to know what a judge is, either.
When they wrote the word trial, they meant a trial as understood in the british system.
I don't see that at all, the concept is also generic and well known pretty much universally.
In other words, every unstated assumption is to be resolved using the customs, practices and semantics of the day, which were, lo-and-behold the British customs.
Of the day, yes. However, that doesn't freeze and codify whatever was unstated and assumed in 1792. Otherwise, we'd have some very strange legal issues today regarding things like burning witches. Since this is 2006, one could say that unstated assumptions should be judged using 2006 customs.
Or one could stop trying to read tea leaves and actually interpret what's written down, which was quite clearly Jefferson's intent, from his own writings on the matter.
Actually, the pork lobby might object on the grounds that you're defamating their product. You might have a lawsuit on your hands, like when the beef lobby sued Oprah.
W. T. F.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what what the Constitution's authors would have wanted. Right. Talk about bench legislation, that's absolutely ridiculous.
And it STILL got done before Gentoo.
OK, sure. The question is, how much of this is actually worth damages? If you want to give me $350,000 - which would pay off my frigging *house* - I'll dance around with a light saber *naked* and let you upload it wherever the hell you want. I'd give the kid $10 and tell him to stop whining and grow up.
I would almost guarantee that somewhere between 10-90% of all kids in High School go through worse. I mean, an actual physical assault doesn't generally get you $350,000. The amount awarded is stupid.
People are too damned whiny. Shit happens. Life sucks. People are mean. Get over it, it's just words.
Oh, whooppeeshit. I was tormented worse than that in high school. I'm sure 90% of the population here was. Where's my $351,000?
Yeah. I'm still wondering how it would? If I have a website that sells stuff, how does that establish a relationship for you to sell me stuff?
Would you pick a random web page and believe everything you read on it too?
Ironic, such advice on slashdot.
Oh, and hey Flems - where the hell were you when they stole your ****ing cannon?
I think that if the citizens of a town really want to finance this boondoggle (it isn't being provided freely by Earthlink and Google right?), let them do it. R.T.F.A.
{
}
and the smoking gun, YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THIS AWAY IBM!!!!:
return 1;
You're either a good troll or a moron. How would one outlaw net neutrality? Require companies to charge different rates for traffic of their competitors? Would these be random rates?
It makes sense in the context that (presumably) this critter was probably living during a time of rapid evolution, in which it had sprung strong morphological differences from a rather stable group of animals (fish). It had not yet developed a form that was well-adapted to a stable environment (land animals) that would allow its evolution to slow down. This is probably because its environment was also rapidly changing. From the articles, it sounds like it was living in shallow seas or lakes, which dry up pretty frequently. That's part of the reason these so-called "transitional forms" are so hard to find - they generally don't exist for long.