This is what happens in insolvency. There isn't enough money to pay debts. Occasionally the entire business will be worth enough to someone that they will be willing to take on the liabilities, but most of the time there is no option but to sell off whatever does have some value as assets. Myspace didn't buy imeem, they bought some of their assets.
The money paid for the assets will go towards paying creditors, though creditors are usually ranked so that a lender with a fixed security (e.g. bank loan) get paid first, then it's the employees, and down it goes. The order is broadly as fair as possible in the circumstances (not to say that it's satisfactory to anybody who doesn't get their money, but the money simply isn't there to do so).
There’s nothing technically wrong with MySpace Music only acquiring certain assets from imeem
Nor is there anything morally wrong with it. The fault it wholly with imeem. It failed, it could not pay it's debts. To imply Myspace is at fault here is completely false since their offer was the one that returns the most money to imeem's creditors - it makes more (but still not much) sense to say every single other entity on the planet is more at fault than Myspace, because none of them made a better offer.
(Not that I like MySpace, and certainly not Newscorp, but that's just how it is)
Something I find interesting is using a mobile phone is the main thing that blurs the line between the two (yes, over generalised, etc) categories of driver:
1. Those who drive defensively, are relatively courteous and a penalty (demerit) on the license would be unthinkable - embarassing
2. People who appear to consider themselves the most important thing on the road. A ticket or penalty would be a nuisance and somehow it would be unjustified or somebody else's fault. Behaviour only changes when they re running out of points, though they'll still chance it sometimes.
I know several otherwise very good drivers who still answer their phone (but not initiate a call) while driving - and very few people can resist checking who it is and cancelling it. Shortly after passing my test I was driving and the phone went off, it was so distracting I just had to turn it off, though in the process I saw who was calling and that little bit of knowledge stopped it being bothering. Since then I always remember to turn my phone off when I get in the drivers seat.
p.s. If you realise you are talking to someone who is driving, tell them you will call back and hang up.
If you go to the source article it's quite clear they are offering alternatives for what they consider to be very good games that (according to the age rating) are unsuitable to kids.
In kid logic, games are "cool" when they have awesome graphics and gameplay, envelope-pushing storylines, and all manners of weaponry. And they aren't wrong. The games they want typically are well constructed, thoughtful, and exciting. But they're often inappropriate for the teens who hunger for them.
The descriptions of the games are also generally very positive with the only issue being the suitability for minors. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the article inspired some parents to make a few orders for when they "confiscate" the xbox at night:
Authentically recreated Renaissance cities, near photo-realistic action, and historical accuracy make this a great game for mature players. But playing as an assassin who relies on an arsenal of weapons makes the violence excessive.
I don't see what is at all objectionable about that. Perhaps you disagree with the ratings system, but that's another issue.
Now, it's a shame the NYT article is less than clear about the games and is lacking in the good substance of the original article, but they had to change something in an otherwise plagiarised article. Still, my criticism is limited since if you want appalling media you have no better example than this here on Slashdot. It leads to a derivative article that adds nothing whatsoever to the original source on CommonSense. There is no justification for not "going to source" unless the objective is to ignorantly trash the NYT for ignorantly trashing violent games (well, at least the "irony" does have some relevance after all). I'm also unsure why, despite evidently being aware of the source, the OP actually states "the NYT names its list of big bads". Objective assertions like "provokingly" also seem unnecessary.
All this is quite bizarre given the same criticism can't be said of the hothardware article the OP lifts from (by the way it seems rather bad form to lift so heavily from an article when it is not prominent). His name in the OP linking to hothardware implies MojoKid is from the site though I can't see anything to corroborate that and am included to assume that is another error.
Mail is the most difficult to snoop. Telephone is fairly difficult. Electronic transmissions (other than internet) is complicated - it depends. Data going over the internet is easy to snoop (and there is a lot of pressure to make it easier still).
Am I talking about practicalities or the legal position?
Pre-empting the inevitable, no correlation does not require causation (but causation does require correlation).
Oh goody, my contract is up and it's another reason to want to move elsewhere.
I'm optimistic of being on a really good deal soon. With T-Mobile.
(I'm not even vaguely surprised at this kind of thing any more from any company, their being caught merely represents an opportunity for me to make use of it).
If a teacher creates the lesson plan during the working day, using school resources, the plan belongs to the school. Fair enough.
If the teacher creates the lesson plan wholly in his own time using his own resources, it belongs to him. Fair enough.
Well OK nothing in life is quite so simple, he is likely to have to prove that he intended on creating the work for his own purposes, and not the school - it can't be incidental to his employment. There may also be a question over the timing of creation - I suspect any work created during "office hours" in the school holidays still counts as being created in school time. Note that teachers may be required to attend the school during class times (8.30 - 3.30 or whatever) but they will still be "at work" for 8 hours a day or whatever, they are merely allowed to work from home and can do those other hours as they see fit. Therefore a teacher may find it difficult to prove that they did not create the plan "in school time".
There may also be questions over using purchased lesson plans - a teacher is under a contract of service. The school is specifically paying for the work that person, whom cannot subcontract their duties. It would be entirely within the rights of the employer to require that the teacher creates their own lesson plan, though as swapping lesson plans is general practice the school would likely to have to specify this in the contract of employment or general policy.
Well I work as an accountant, though in the UK. I'll vouch that tradesmen regularly make more than engineers, though it varies substantially and there's a consideration to be made for the amount of hours they're putting in.
Set it up with the essential programs including Firefox and plugins. Install Adblock. Apply your hosts file. Set up the firewall. Install antivirus set to automatically update and quick scan daily, automatically fixing any problems it encounters. Set Windows, Java, Adobe (Reader and Flash), Quicktime and so on to automatically download and install updates. Arrange an appropriately frequent automatic backup of the My Documents folder (exclude Videos and Music if using a thumbdrive). Uninstall Outlook and tell them to use web based email.
Image the drive.
Now leave them to it. Do not feel obliged to solve their problems a the drop of the hat. I don't mean to be unreasonable, but rather to apply reason! As always, using a car analogy can make the situation clear. What action would you take if the problem was with their car? People tend to completely exaggerate computer problems in scope, importance and immediacy - like you have to come over RIGHT NOW because they can't play a flash video. Talk through how important the problem is and when they really need it to be fixed by and then schedule it at your convenience, as if you were going to fix their car.
People have this weird void when it comes to computers. Smart, sensible people cannot figure out silly things like checking the cable is plugged in when the keyboard doesn't work. The same person will call me and complain like it's my fault when their computer I advised them against (and subsequently never touched) has a problem, yet they will offer an evening of beer, pizza and movies if I help decorate, or offer to pay me to help them with their tax return.
I once spent 3 hours fixing a flatmates computer (including donating a RAM stick) and just as I was finishing he went into the kitchen to make a cup of tea, came back and complained it was my turn to do the dishes.
Every MP game I've played for more than a week I've spent probably 90% of my game time in a single communities' servers. This goes right back to Quake and stands true today (TF2). Probably >99.999% of that time the server had some kind of mod too.
Yes here in UK have a ground wire, a fuse in the plug and also a fusebox at the mains. Historically the "fusebox" has been fuse wire but they've been replaced with GFI circuit breakers (though we call them RCD) - a fuse box in the mains is rare now. In blocks of flats/apartments there is a further set of shared controls but I'm not sure what's there.
Additionally many products are double-insulated though AFAIK this is more a result of products generally being designed for the global market. I gather this is the reason for the earth pin generally being made of plastic on foreign-made electricals.
For what it's worth people's houses are still being burned to the ground because they left their mobile phone charging.
Its second traffic throttling trigger is tripped when the Cable Modem Termination System you're hooked-up to – along with up to 15,000 other Comcast subscribers – gets congested, and your traffic is somehow identified as being responsible.
This I don't like, but I understand. If this happens often Comcast should be upping capacity, but as a short-term solution the principle seems reasonable and fair (putting aside the filtering looking a bit extreme).
Comcast's first traffic throttling trigger is tripped by using more than 70 per cent of your maximum downstream or upstream bandwidth for more than 15 minutes
This however appears to be a solution without requiring there to be a problem. Being penalised regardless of whether there is congestion or not, simply for utilising three-quarters of what you paid for. The description in TFA does seem to imply that if there is no congestion the actual bandwidth won't change too much, but I guess it would significantly impact gaming lag (particularly if you're hosting).
My experience with Mac owners broadly correlates except that they are not stupid. They know they are paying over the odds, but for them it's worth it.
Value is not as simple as comparing specifications and prices. To them, a Mac fulfils their computing needs without the hassles of a Windows or Linux PC. They want to buy a box from their regular department store, plug it in and have everything just work, and keep just working. No worries about plugging in some new hardware, software, or viruses. It's worth a few hundred bucks. I can turn the argument around to my own perspective: to me Windows is worth £70 more than Linux. I'm well aware Linux is superior in many respects, but frankly Windows fits my needs better.
Incidentally perhaps, this is why MS shit a brick over Netbooks. Running Ubuntu on my PC, I was highly impressed but there was two immediately apparent critical flaws: some hardware (a USB wireless adapter) didn't "just work", even after a long search for drivers, and secondly nor did Flash. Having a go on a friend's netbook however all the hardware issues went away, the only issue was Flash wasn't preinstalled (and I bet that wouldn't have taken long). All of a sudden Linux was in sight of being an Apple for the low end.
Tie this together and it's obvious why Apple is so keen for complete control over the hardware. Yes, hardware is profitable in it's own right. Yes, the "sexy" designs are a major part of the Apple brand. But the key business is not sexy hardware nor sleek OS, they are merely components of the Apple Computer. The thing you buy from your favourite department store and everything just works.
To be fair the "UK law enforcement and intelligence services" should not be commenting on due process and civil rights, other than to confirm that they uphold them. It is their job to track criminals, it is our job to dictate the rules they must follow in doing so.
It's not really fair to apportion them with blame for the laziness, apathy and short-sightedness of voters and their elected officials. They're probably even more surprised than we are when their more outlandish proposals actually get approved.
I work as an accountant with several lawyers as clients, and I can also vouch that lawyers are no good at bookkeeping but are good at arguing.
Incidentally, someone made a joke about Excel but actually computerised systems are quite handy for having built-in controls such as exception reports (sanity checks) and so on. Most importantly, the computer always bothers to actually perform the checks.
p.s. What is ethnicity, race and indigence (poverty) doing on "Maryland's Sentencing Guides Worksheet"?
It's telling that the first line of the Wiki is "Libertarianism is a term adopted by a broad spectrum of political philosophies". The first line of the second paragraph is "All forms of libertarianism support strong personal rights to life and liberty, but do not agree on the subject of property".
So how can we have a discussion which is fundamentally about questioning the libertarian stance on property when there isn't one?
To me libertarianism derives from liberty and hence the fundamental rule is everybody should be free to do as they please, provided that does not encroach on the equal rights of others, at which point a fair and just balance must be struck. (If you "get it" you'll realise everything past the first comma is redundant.) For what it's worth I certainly do not agree with the elimination of the state because a) the state (or at least judiciary) is necessary to arbitrate and enforce "a fair and just balance" b) there are major practical considerations such as markets not being perfect.
To relate to the OP, I have a suspicion my take fundamentally agrees to that of the author but the article loses itself in the detail while fundamentally the debate is about principle. Talk of a "bottom-up, participatory structure" and so on is not relevant. The question is, does free software impinge on the rights of others? My answer is of course not. It may be difficult for paid-software to compete, but nobody has a right to do well in the market place, they only have the right to try.
A generation is a broad body of varied people and thus can only be described in broad generalisations. It does not require each member to behave that way, and it does not describe any one member (except by chance). It's an average - the selfishness of the jerks outweighs the others.
Just like the general body of scientists are in support of global warming. By the way, I said detrimental climate change, resource shortage [particularly energy] and so on, not "global warming", which is just one possible cause.
Sometimes there is also a public consultation document towards the start of the process, but the usual procedure for delegated legislation is to invite comment on a published exposure draft once it has been, uh, drafted.
If you disagree with them, or are simply in their way, they're not going to engage in productive discussion or debate. That would imply that they are somehow your equal.
Fixed?
It should hardly come as a surprise that when a generation has been ignored, they will then behave as if they do not expect their attempts at debate to be productive. It's a response to the behaviour of the baby-boomer generation.
If you want an example, look at "the environment" (which in my view/this context is an umbrella term for detrimental climate change, resource shortage [particularly energy] and so on). The whole thing was widely known yet completely ignored anything other than what affects the baby boomers (e.g. air quality). We engaged in productive discussion, you did nothing.
So excuse me if we as a generation think you're all a bunch of greedy, self-serving wankers whom won't do anything counter to personal interest unless forced, but it's a lesson learned from your behaviour. We're growing up, it's our turn, we're taking control and we've got our work cut out sorting the mess you've left.
The perfect market hypothesis requires many buyers, many sellers, perfect information and instant reaction to news (which is spread instantly, to people who react rationally) and zero transaction/switching costs. Perfect markets result in perfect allocation of scarce resources.
Day traders bring about the usually-good-enough market reality. There are many of them, they have about as good info as there is, they usually do react very quickly and usually rationally enough. Sure, there's big news of bizarre screw-ups, but there's a reason that makes for news, and anyway it's usually down to bad information. They're almost certainly the piece of the puzzle that works best. Or closest to the theory anyway.
privately owned resources will be used unsustainably and depleted because the owner can simply take the profits and reinvest them into rapidly depleting some other resource
No the reverse should happen. A rapidly depleting resource means restriction on supply means the equilibrium point "moves to the left" (price increases, quantity falls). What should happen is the allocation of that scarce resource occurs in the optimal way (factoring in both how much people want it now, and how much more they will want it later). Just because you come into possession of a resource does not require it to be plundered to make money today - you can wait for prices to rise, sell the rights to the resource or whatever.
The issues are that markets aren't perfect, people don't act fully rationally. We all secretly kid ourselves that an alternative to oil will appear just in the nick of time. Politics interferes - OPEC turns on the taps even though it is against their interests, against the market forces.
For single and co-op games adaptive difficulty is a plus - these games are all about the enjoyment of the player and "fairness" is not an issue. Things that players do use to compare with each other should be fair however, for example the hardest difficulty setting should always be comparable, as should achievements and a good lap time should always be a good lap time.
Never take the control away from the player either. Keep hard, medium and easy, the rubber-banding should just offer a bit of flexibility around the edges.
For multiplayer, there should be no artificial adaptation but ideally the design of the game should involve a degree of natural levelling. Ensure both teams have their opportunity, but it should never go so far as tipping the balance in favour of either winning. Spawn points should always be highly defendable, for example. The key here is any advantage to one is unfair on another.
Ironically perhaps the trend seems to be the reverse. Games are increasingly benefiting players who do well with unlockable weapons and such for demonstrations of skill or at least long play time. All this does it help skilled players "pwn n00bs" some more while lesser players seem to thrive on being "rewarded", or rather being given something to help them defeat even lesser players. Nobody ever gets rewarded for being a good guy, like a skilled player swapping to a weaker team.
I'm still "newbie" in TF2 but it seems to have a good take on unlockables. They seem to arrive almost at random and usually the advantages are outweighed with disadvantages, making them more "different" or specialist than "better".
Under UK tax law it would be exempt. It's not carrying on a trade, there's no intent to profit. Certain other things are specifically exempt even if you do make a 'profit' - like your primary residence. There can be grey areas like classic cars, some of which can be classified as an investment (and some do make good ones).
In the OP the income is typical of a trade. The lawyer could probably claim expenses sufficient to show a loss, but as it's effectively a self-employed trade (good or bad is not relevant) unemployment benefits go out the window. OK, here in the UK you can still claim but you need to prove the profit and it is deducted from the benefits, it's administered differently to normal benefits.
There's a very simple, mutually beneficial solution to this - Google should do Mr. Murdoch a favor and stop indexing his content. It's really a win-win scenario for everyone (including readers).
That's ironic.
Both as a search engine and news aggregator Google must be objective. When Google starts letting their business, political or whatever agenda influence their output, that output is nothing more than biased and untrustworthy. It is no longer information, it is worthless. Just because a bias suits your (and my) own views does not change that.
Google should not stop indexing his sites and so on until formally asked, whether by letter or by Robots.txt.
Slashdot Mirror
This is what happens in insolvency. There isn't enough money to pay debts. Occasionally the entire business will be worth enough to someone that they will be willing to take on the liabilities, but most of the time there is no option but to sell off whatever does have some value as assets. Myspace didn't buy imeem, they bought some of their assets.
The money paid for the assets will go towards paying creditors, though creditors are usually ranked so that a lender with a fixed security (e.g. bank loan) get paid first, then it's the employees, and down it goes. The order is broadly as fair as possible in the circumstances (not to say that it's satisfactory to anybody who doesn't get their money, but the money simply isn't there to do so).
Nor is there anything morally wrong with it. The fault it wholly with imeem. It failed, it could not pay it's debts. To imply Myspace is at fault here is completely false since their offer was the one that returns the most money to imeem's creditors - it makes more (but still not much) sense to say every single other entity on the planet is more at fault than Myspace, because none of them made a better offer.
(Not that I like MySpace, and certainly not Newscorp, but that's just how it is)
Something I find interesting is using a mobile phone is the main thing that blurs the line between the two (yes, over generalised, etc) categories of driver:
1. Those who drive defensively, are relatively courteous and a penalty (demerit) on the license would be unthinkable - embarassing
2. People who appear to consider themselves the most important thing on the road. A ticket or penalty would be a nuisance and somehow it would be unjustified or somebody else's fault. Behaviour only changes when they re running out of points, though they'll still chance it sometimes.
I know several otherwise very good drivers who still answer their phone (but not initiate a call) while driving - and very few people can resist checking who it is and cancelling it. Shortly after passing my test I was driving and the phone went off, it was so distracting I just had to turn it off, though in the process I saw who was calling and that little bit of knowledge stopped it being bothering. Since then I always remember to turn my phone off when I get in the drivers seat.
p.s. If you realise you are talking to someone who is driving, tell them you will call back and hang up.
If you go to the source article it's quite clear they are offering alternatives for what they consider to be very good games that (according to the age rating) are unsuitable to kids.
The descriptions of the games are also generally very positive with the only issue being the suitability for minors. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the article inspired some parents to make a few orders for when they "confiscate" the xbox at night:
I don't see what is at all objectionable about that. Perhaps you disagree with the ratings system, but that's another issue.
Now, it's a shame the NYT article is less than clear about the games and is lacking in the good substance of the original article, but they had to change something in an otherwise plagiarised article. Still, my criticism is limited since if you want appalling media you have no better example than this here on Slashdot. It leads to a derivative article that adds nothing whatsoever to the original source on CommonSense. There is no justification for not "going to source" unless the objective is to ignorantly trash the NYT for ignorantly trashing violent games (well, at least the "irony" does have some relevance after all). I'm also unsure why, despite evidently being aware of the source, the OP actually states "the NYT names its list of big bads". Objective assertions like "provokingly" also seem unnecessary.
All this is quite bizarre given the same criticism can't be said of the hothardware article the OP lifts from (by the way it seems rather bad form to lift so heavily from an article when it is not prominent). His name in the OP linking to hothardware implies MojoKid is from the site though I can't see anything to corroborate that and am included to assume that is another error.
Mail is the most difficult to snoop. Telephone is fairly difficult. Electronic transmissions (other than internet) is complicated - it depends. Data going over the internet is easy to snoop (and there is a lot of pressure to make it easier still).
Am I talking about practicalities or the legal position?
Pre-empting the inevitable, no correlation does not require causation (but causation does require correlation).
Oh goody, my contract is up and it's another reason to want to move elsewhere.
I'm optimistic of being on a really good deal soon. With T-Mobile.
(I'm not even vaguely surprised at this kind of thing any more from any company, their being caught merely represents an opportunity for me to make use of it).
If a teacher creates the lesson plan during the working day, using school resources, the plan belongs to the school. Fair enough.
If the teacher creates the lesson plan wholly in his own time using his own resources, it belongs to him. Fair enough.
Well OK nothing in life is quite so simple, he is likely to have to prove that he intended on creating the work for his own purposes, and not the school - it can't be incidental to his employment. There may also be a question over the timing of creation - I suspect any work created during "office hours" in the school holidays still counts as being created in school time. Note that teachers may be required to attend the school during class times (8.30 - 3.30 or whatever) but they will still be "at work" for 8 hours a day or whatever, they are merely allowed to work from home and can do those other hours as they see fit. Therefore a teacher may find it difficult to prove that they did not create the plan "in school time".
There may also be questions over using purchased lesson plans - a teacher is under a contract of service. The school is specifically paying for the work that person, whom cannot subcontract their duties. It would be entirely within the rights of the employer to require that the teacher creates their own lesson plan, though as swapping lesson plans is general practice the school would likely to have to specify this in the contract of employment or general policy.
Well I work as an accountant, though in the UK. I'll vouch that tradesmen regularly make more than engineers, though it varies substantially and there's a consideration to be made for the amount of hours they're putting in.
Set it up with the essential programs including Firefox and plugins. Install Adblock. Apply your hosts file. Set up the firewall. Install antivirus set to automatically update and quick scan daily, automatically fixing any problems it encounters. Set Windows, Java, Adobe (Reader and Flash), Quicktime and so on to automatically download and install updates. Arrange an appropriately frequent automatic backup of the My Documents folder (exclude Videos and Music if using a thumbdrive). Uninstall Outlook and tell them to use web based email.
Image the drive.
Now leave them to it. Do not feel obliged to solve their problems a the drop of the hat. I don't mean to be unreasonable, but rather to apply reason! As always, using a car analogy can make the situation clear. What action would you take if the problem was with their car? People tend to completely exaggerate computer problems in scope, importance and immediacy - like you have to come over RIGHT NOW because they can't play a flash video. Talk through how important the problem is and when they really need it to be fixed by and then schedule it at your convenience, as if you were going to fix their car.
People have this weird void when it comes to computers. Smart, sensible people cannot figure out silly things like checking the cable is plugged in when the keyboard doesn't work. The same person will call me and complain like it's my fault when their computer I advised them against (and subsequently never touched) has a problem, yet they will offer an evening of beer, pizza and movies if I help decorate, or offer to pay me to help them with their tax return.
I once spent 3 hours fixing a flatmates computer (including donating a RAM stick) and just as I was finishing he went into the kitchen to make a cup of tea, came back and complained it was my turn to do the dishes.
Every MP game I've played for more than a week I've spent probably 90% of my game time in a single communities' servers. This goes right back to Quake and stands true today (TF2). Probably >99.999% of that time the server had some kind of mod too.
Yes here in UK have a ground wire, a fuse in the plug and also a fusebox at the mains. Historically the "fusebox" has been fuse wire but they've been replaced with GFI circuit breakers (though we call them RCD) - a fuse box in the mains is rare now. In blocks of flats/apartments there is a further set of shared controls but I'm not sure what's there.
Additionally many products are double-insulated though AFAIK this is more a result of products generally being designed for the global market. I gather this is the reason for the earth pin generally being made of plastic on foreign-made electricals.
For what it's worth people's houses are still being burned to the ground because they left their mobile phone charging.
This I don't like, but I understand. If this happens often Comcast should be upping capacity, but as a short-term solution the principle seems reasonable and fair (putting aside the filtering looking a bit extreme).
This however appears to be a solution without requiring there to be a problem. Being penalised regardless of whether there is congestion or not, simply for utilising three-quarters of what you paid for. The description in TFA does seem to imply that if there is no congestion the actual bandwidth won't change too much, but I guess it would significantly impact gaming lag (particularly if you're hosting).
My experience with Mac owners broadly correlates except that they are not stupid. They know they are paying over the odds, but for them it's worth it.
Value is not as simple as comparing specifications and prices. To them, a Mac fulfils their computing needs without the hassles of a Windows or Linux PC. They want to buy a box from their regular department store, plug it in and have everything just work, and keep just working. No worries about plugging in some new hardware, software, or viruses. It's worth a few hundred bucks. I can turn the argument around to my own perspective: to me Windows is worth £70 more than Linux. I'm well aware Linux is superior in many respects, but frankly Windows fits my needs better.
Incidentally perhaps, this is why MS shit a brick over Netbooks. Running Ubuntu on my PC, I was highly impressed but there was two immediately apparent critical flaws: some hardware (a USB wireless adapter) didn't "just work", even after a long search for drivers, and secondly nor did Flash. Having a go on a friend's netbook however all the hardware issues went away, the only issue was Flash wasn't preinstalled (and I bet that wouldn't have taken long). All of a sudden Linux was in sight of being an Apple for the low end.
Tie this together and it's obvious why Apple is so keen for complete control over the hardware. Yes, hardware is profitable in it's own right. Yes, the "sexy" designs are a major part of the Apple brand. But the key business is not sexy hardware nor sleek OS, they are merely components of the Apple Computer. The thing you buy from your favourite department store and everything just works.
To be fair the "UK law enforcement and intelligence services" should not be commenting on due process and civil rights, other than to confirm that they uphold them. It is their job to track criminals, it is our job to dictate the rules they must follow in doing so.
It's not really fair to apportion them with blame for the laziness, apathy and short-sightedness of voters and their elected officials. They're probably even more surprised than we are when their more outlandish proposals actually get approved.
I work as an accountant with several lawyers as clients, and I can also vouch that lawyers are no good at bookkeeping but are good at arguing.
Incidentally, someone made a joke about Excel but actually computerised systems are quite handy for having built-in controls such as exception reports (sanity checks) and so on. Most importantly, the computer always bothers to actually perform the checks.
p.s. What is ethnicity, race and indigence (poverty) doing on "Maryland's Sentencing Guides Worksheet"?
It's telling that the first line of the Wiki is "Libertarianism is a term adopted by a broad spectrum of political philosophies". The first line of the second paragraph is "All forms of libertarianism support strong personal rights to life and liberty, but do not agree on the subject of property".
So how can we have a discussion which is fundamentally about questioning the libertarian stance on property when there isn't one?
To me libertarianism derives from liberty and hence the fundamental rule is everybody should be free to do as they please, provided that does not encroach on the equal rights of others, at which point a fair and just balance must be struck. (If you "get it" you'll realise everything past the first comma is redundant.) For what it's worth I certainly do not agree with the elimination of the state because a) the state (or at least judiciary) is necessary to arbitrate and enforce "a fair and just balance" b) there are major practical considerations such as markets not being perfect.
To relate to the OP, I have a suspicion my take fundamentally agrees to that of the author but the article loses itself in the detail while fundamentally the debate is about principle. Talk of a "bottom-up, participatory structure" and so on is not relevant. The question is, does free software impinge on the rights of others? My answer is of course not. It may be difficult for paid-software to compete, but nobody has a right to do well in the market place, they only have the right to try.
A generation is a broad body of varied people and thus can only be described in broad generalisations. It does not require each member to behave that way, and it does not describe any one member (except by chance). It's an average - the selfishness of the jerks outweighs the others.
Just like the general body of scientists are in support of global warming. By the way, I said detrimental climate change, resource shortage [particularly energy] and so on, not "global warming", which is just one possible cause.
Sometimes there is also a public consultation document towards the start of the process, but the usual procedure for delegated legislation is to invite comment on a published exposure draft once it has been, uh, drafted.
Fixed?
It should hardly come as a surprise that when a generation has been ignored, they will then behave as if they do not expect their attempts at debate to be productive. It's a response to the behaviour of the baby-boomer generation.
If you want an example, look at "the environment" (which in my view/this context is an umbrella term for detrimental climate change, resource shortage [particularly energy] and so on). The whole thing was widely known yet completely ignored anything other than what affects the baby boomers (e.g. air quality). We engaged in productive discussion, you did nothing.
So excuse me if we as a generation think you're all a bunch of greedy, self-serving wankers whom won't do anything counter to personal interest unless forced, but it's a lesson learned from your behaviour. We're growing up, it's our turn, we're taking control and we've got our work cut out sorting the mess you've left.
The perfect market hypothesis requires many buyers, many sellers, perfect information and instant reaction to news (which is spread instantly, to people who react rationally) and zero transaction/switching costs. Perfect markets result in perfect allocation of scarce resources.
Day traders bring about the usually-good-enough market reality. There are many of them, they have about as good info as there is, they usually do react very quickly and usually rationally enough. Sure, there's big news of bizarre screw-ups, but there's a reason that makes for news, and anyway it's usually down to bad information. They're almost certainly the piece of the puzzle that works best. Or closest to the theory anyway.
No the reverse should happen. A rapidly depleting resource means restriction on supply means the equilibrium point "moves to the left" (price increases, quantity falls). What should happen is the allocation of that scarce resource occurs in the optimal way (factoring in both how much people want it now, and how much more they will want it later). Just because you come into possession of a resource does not require it to be plundered to make money today - you can wait for prices to rise, sell the rights to the resource or whatever.
The issues are that markets aren't perfect, people don't act fully rationally. We all secretly kid ourselves that an alternative to oil will appear just in the nick of time. Politics interferes - OPEC turns on the taps even though it is against their interests, against the market forces.
For single and co-op games adaptive difficulty is a plus - these games are all about the enjoyment of the player and "fairness" is not an issue. Things that players do use to compare with each other should be fair however, for example the hardest difficulty setting should always be comparable, as should achievements and a good lap time should always be a good lap time.
Never take the control away from the player either. Keep hard, medium and easy, the rubber-banding should just offer a bit of flexibility around the edges.
For multiplayer, there should be no artificial adaptation but ideally the design of the game should involve a degree of natural levelling. Ensure both teams have their opportunity, but it should never go so far as tipping the balance in favour of either winning. Spawn points should always be highly defendable, for example. The key here is any advantage to one is unfair on another.
Ironically perhaps the trend seems to be the reverse. Games are increasingly benefiting players who do well with unlockable weapons and such for demonstrations of skill or at least long play time. All this does it help skilled players "pwn n00bs" some more while lesser players seem to thrive on being "rewarded", or rather being given something to help them defeat even lesser players. Nobody ever gets rewarded for being a good guy, like a skilled player swapping to a weaker team.
I'm still "newbie" in TF2 but it seems to have a good take on unlockables. They seem to arrive almost at random and usually the advantages are outweighed with disadvantages, making them more "different" or specialist than "better".
Well yes that stuff is in the intro but NJ is most famous for the Sopranos.
You're not spinning this right.
There, I fixed it.
Under UK tax law it would be exempt. It's not carrying on a trade, there's no intent to profit. Certain other things are specifically exempt even if you do make a 'profit' - like your primary residence. There can be grey areas like classic cars, some of which can be classified as an investment (and some do make good ones).
In the OP the income is typical of a trade. The lawyer could probably claim expenses sufficient to show a loss, but as it's effectively a self-employed trade (good or bad is not relevant) unemployment benefits go out the window. OK, here in the UK you can still claim but you need to prove the profit and it is deducted from the benefits, it's administered differently to normal benefits.
That's ironic.
Both as a search engine and news aggregator Google must be objective. When Google starts letting their business, political or whatever agenda influence their output, that output is nothing more than biased and untrustworthy. It is no longer information, it is worthless. Just because a bias suits your (and my) own views does not change that.
Google should not stop indexing his sites and so on until formally asked, whether by letter or by Robots.txt.
p.s. no the ICO isn't trademarking the word Commissioner, it's a font or PDF/HTML formatting thing or whatever.