China wouldn't get involved. They don't care, beyond propping up DPRK to keep them from failing so China isn't flooded with refugees from DPRK. The ideology is unimportant these days.
By that definition, everything is a natural monopoly, because would you rather go to 3 stores to buy tools, clothes, and food, or just one, the Wal-Mart Supercenter?
No, a natural monopoly is defined to be where the cost is less to have a single provider. But, since Uber uses contractors, the cost of the service is the same for them and anyone copying them. The cost is the contractor, and that's the same no matter which app sends them the rides.
A separate app for every town isn't an issue.There'll be aggregator apps, like the travel apps that search multiple sites and such.
When the Puritans came over, they came because they were a bunch of wacky religious nuts who were unliked by the local populace in Europe and they wanted a place to practice their silliness without being hassled about it. At that time, there was no "America" as a nation, it was unsettled.
Puritans came here because they weren't allowed to force others to follow them. They didn't come here to find religious freedom, but to fight it.
And the Irish, Chinese, and others often came over to America because the US was so speparate from the world that a famine in Ireland had nothing to do with the US. Or instability after the abolition of slavery in Russia had no effect on the US. Before globalization, the US was still the new world. You couldn't just fly across the ocean in a few hours, so problems at home were generally limited to local areas, and the US was insulate from local economic problems across the oceans. Not because the US was the best, but because it wasn't where they were.
Mobility from lower class to upper middle class is more likely to happen in the opportunity-less country they came from. There is plenty of opportunity in the US. Where people like Trump were born into billionaire families, and turned billions into a few more billions. Then talks about his rise from nothing.
The US spends time/money trying to convince the rest of the world it's the best, then keep everyone out. Why bother to do the two contrary things?
The thing with that business model is that the laws against slavery made that business practice illegal, and it was the cab companies, and others that got the laws against slavery repealed or modified to allow debt working.
Because of abuses after slavery was made illegal, it was illegal to make a worker rent his tools from you, and things like that. Such practices were used to re-enslave the recently unslaved. But slavery is back, in the form of mandatory employer fees. Gotta pay your employer to be able to work for them, and hope to make it back with tips. Cabbies sound like strippers.
Everyone can pick their job, but not everyone can afford to pick their preferred job. There's a difference. You are arguing that he's wrong because you misunderstood him.
Since impairment is hard to measure, the laws are written such that it's not about the impairment, but the BAC level. The people with a genetic sensitivity to alcohol, if stumbling drunk at 0.07 would be "legal" as a BAC below the legal limit is a defense to DUI, and anything above the legal limit is drunk.
Also note that in this case, she was exhibiting signs of being drunk at the time, so was likely affected. None of the arguments mentioned in TFA indicated that she argued she wasn't drunk, just that she didn't drink to get there, and had no idea she was over the limit and no reason to suspect she was.
Not that your argument couldn't work, but that she took the easy argument, and argued what I said, not what you said, which is why I said it.
The court ruling also indicated that a new longer extension wouldn't be unlawful because perpetual extensions are still "limited" even if that limit is 1,000,000,000,000 years (or the heat death of the universe, which ever comes first).
Bernie Sanders is giving non-newspeak as well, just without the hate. The fact that hate sells better is what shows the breakdown. The American people are hateful little pricks.
I have metered power. I don't expect the power company to be trying to identify which electrons are going to my water heater or refrigerator and blocking those, while letting my TV electrons through, so long as they are going to an approved TV channel.
And I've had unmetered water and unmetered power. Note the other utilities never sell them as "unlimited" just "unmetered". And yes, they do sell them that way, in some places and circumstances.
Unlimited would be "You can saturate your up- and download bandwidth at the agreed upon transfer rate 24x7x365".
Nobody has ever had that definition of "unlimited" for a consumer service. That you would like dedicated service for a consumer price doesn't change reality.
Unlimited has never meant unlimited. The only time it did was back in dial-up days, and even then "unlimited" was limited to the number of phone lines you paid for. Every unlimited is limited.
Thus the word has come to take a meaning closer to "not limited per user" or something like that. They shouldn't place user limits on "unlimited" but are free to oversubscribe so that not everyone could get 100% all the time. Done right, anyone who tries will get 100% of their service whenever they try.
It was much more grunge/club than the original. Fit with the film, and sung by essentially a no-hit wonder, but rather than a has-been, they were an almost-was (still better than a never-was). Though nice to see you clicked the link. Next time it will be to Rick Astley.
Yet when the angry wife published the video, she got her husband and his married mistress fired. So since she got someone fired with "no grounds", does that make the wife an SJW?
Either you will have to accept that your petty game is complete bullshit, or declare that misogamists do not and never have existed. If you don't believe it, try me.
Misogynist? Or did you mean misogamist?
A misogynist is a person who believes women are inferior and not "worthy" of the same rights and privileges of a male. So, feel free to bring on the exceptions.
The real issue there is that even if he were innocent and vindicated in court public opinion would prevent him from being in a successful movie or show.
Did you miss the multiple public statements where he admitted he did it? He just disputes that drugging someone and raping them is illegal, an argument that probably won't go over well in court. So he's an admitted rapist, even if not a convicted one.
The research I did indicated that you could see particulates in hot water from the scale that is pumped out. Perhaps the required softeners are for safety. Hot water with the scale precipitated into the water, rather than dissolved, could cause health/safety issues. But I didn't think it would do any damage (or wear) to the heater, it moves the water out too fast for it do stay around and cause problems, like it does in the tank heaters.
No, she should lose it now. She has an uncontrolled medical issue that impacts her driving. An untreated epileptic is banned from driving, as are other medical conditions, depending on jurisdiction. Once it's under control, she should be able to get her license with restrictions and a medical caveat on it, like epileptics, and if cured, she can move back to a regular license.
Still requires a voluntary act. That's the current mens rea standard. Almost nothing requires mens rea as originally applied. She took no voluntary act. There was an involuntary act from within her digestive system, but no voluntary act on her part that resulted in a breach of law. You don't have to intend to drive drunk. You just have to drink to satisfy the current mens rea. That is the guilty act, drinking.
It's more explicitly repealed for drunk driving because you can't argue that you were too drunk to realize you were driving drunk. That argument, with strict mens rea should be conviction proof, so mens rea is officially repealed for that offense, though it isn't applied to any offense these days. You only need the intended act that results in the offense, not the intention to commit the offense.
Take a person who fires a gun in the air for new years. The bullet comes down and kills someone. They would likely be charged with a homicide of some degree. The fact that the act was intended to be harmeless is irrelevant. mens rea doesn't apply to anything anymore. The shooter intended to fire the weapon, and that's sufficient for homicide.
Violent crimes, like assault, are carried out by males much more often than women. One may link aggressiveness with asholity, and that's also gender-linked.
So, did you have any facts to back up your opinion that Y is unrelated to asshole-ness? Or are you just attacking others because you don't like their conclusion?
Slashdot Mirror
I often wonder just how 'aware' he is of these things.
He went to school in Switzerland. How could he not be at least a little aware?
China wouldn't get involved. They don't care, beyond propping up DPRK to keep them from failing so China isn't flooded with refugees from DPRK. The ideology is unimportant these days.
If you don't have any evidence otherwise, then you are a hypocrite.
Once they've driven everyone with a different business model out of business, anyone could copy their business model to compete.
By that definition, everything is a natural monopoly, because would you rather go to 3 stores to buy tools, clothes, and food, or just one, the Wal-Mart Supercenter?
No, a natural monopoly is defined to be where the cost is less to have a single provider. But, since Uber uses contractors, the cost of the service is the same for them and anyone copying them. The cost is the contractor, and that's the same no matter which app sends them the rides.
A separate app for every town isn't an issue.There'll be aggregator apps, like the travel apps that search multiple sites and such.
Which really *isn't* capitalism.
Which is why we don't like you pointing out that the most accurate term for US Capitalism is fascism. It makes us feel bad.
When the Puritans came over, they came because they were a bunch of wacky religious nuts who were unliked by the local populace in Europe and they wanted a place to practice their silliness without being hassled about it. At that time, there was no "America" as a nation, it was unsettled.
Puritans came here because they weren't allowed to force others to follow them. They didn't come here to find religious freedom, but to fight it.
And the Irish, Chinese, and others often came over to America because the US was so speparate from the world that a famine in Ireland had nothing to do with the US. Or instability after the abolition of slavery in Russia had no effect on the US. Before globalization, the US was still the new world. You couldn't just fly across the ocean in a few hours, so problems at home were generally limited to local areas, and the US was insulate from local economic problems across the oceans. Not because the US was the best, but because it wasn't where they were.
Mobility from lower class to upper middle class is more likely to happen in the opportunity-less country they came from. There is plenty of opportunity in the US. Where people like Trump were born into billionaire families, and turned billions into a few more billions. Then talks about his rise from nothing.
The US spends time/money trying to convince the rest of the world it's the best, then keep everyone out. Why bother to do the two contrary things?
Nobody said life was fair. But people have said that, all else equal, more fair would be better. Why do you want life to be less fair?
The thing with that business model is that the laws against slavery made that business practice illegal, and it was the cab companies, and others that got the laws against slavery repealed or modified to allow debt working.
Because of abuses after slavery was made illegal, it was illegal to make a worker rent his tools from you, and things like that. Such practices were used to re-enslave the recently unslaved. But slavery is back, in the form of mandatory employer fees. Gotta pay your employer to be able to work for them, and hope to make it back with tips. Cabbies sound like strippers.
Everyone can pick their job, but not everyone can afford to pick their preferred job. There's a difference. You are arguing that he's wrong because you misunderstood him.
Since impairment is hard to measure, the laws are written such that it's not about the impairment, but the BAC level. The people with a genetic sensitivity to alcohol, if stumbling drunk at 0.07 would be "legal" as a BAC below the legal limit is a defense to DUI, and anything above the legal limit is drunk.
Also note that in this case, she was exhibiting signs of being drunk at the time, so was likely affected. None of the arguments mentioned in TFA indicated that she argued she wasn't drunk, just that she didn't drink to get there, and had no idea she was over the limit and no reason to suspect she was.
Not that your argument couldn't work, but that she took the easy argument, and argued what I said, not what you said, which is why I said it.
The court ruling also indicated that a new longer extension wouldn't be unlawful because perpetual extensions are still "limited" even if that limit is 1,000,000,000,000 years (or the heat death of the universe, which ever comes first).
If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance.
Bernie Sanders is giving non-newspeak as well, just without the hate. The fact that hate sells better is what shows the breakdown. The American people are hateful little pricks.
I have metered power. I don't expect the power company to be trying to identify which electrons are going to my water heater or refrigerator and blocking those, while letting my TV electrons through, so long as they are going to an approved TV channel.
And I've had unmetered water and unmetered power. Note the other utilities never sell them as "unlimited" just "unmetered". And yes, they do sell them that way, in some places and circumstances.
Unlimited would be "You can saturate your up- and download bandwidth at the agreed upon transfer rate 24x7x365".
Nobody has ever had that definition of "unlimited" for a consumer service. That you would like dedicated service for a consumer price doesn't change reality.
Unlimited has never meant unlimited. The only time it did was back in dial-up days, and even then "unlimited" was limited to the number of phone lines you paid for. Every unlimited is limited.
Thus the word has come to take a meaning closer to "not limited per user" or something like that. They shouldn't place user limits on "unlimited" but are free to oversubscribe so that not everyone could get 100% all the time. Done right, anyone who tries will get 100% of their service whenever they try.
It was much more grunge/club than the original. Fit with the film, and sung by essentially a no-hit wonder, but rather than a has-been, they were an almost-was (still better than a never-was). Though nice to see you clicked the link. Next time it will be to Rick Astley.
There is no grounds for firing the cheaters,
Yet when the angry wife published the video, she got her husband and his married mistress fired. So since she got someone fired with "no grounds", does that make the wife an SJW?
Either you will have to accept that your petty game is complete bullshit, or declare that misogamists do not and never have existed. If you don't believe it, try me.
Misogynist? Or did you mean misogamist?
A misogynist is a person who believes women are inferior and not "worthy" of the same rights and privileges of a male. So, feel free to bring on the exceptions.
The real issue there is that even if he were innocent and vindicated in court public opinion would prevent him from being in a successful movie or show.
Did you miss the multiple public statements where he admitted he did it? He just disputes that drugging someone and raping them is illegal, an argument that probably won't go over well in court. So he's an admitted rapist, even if not a convicted one.
The research I did indicated that you could see particulates in hot water from the scale that is pumped out. Perhaps the required softeners are for safety. Hot water with the scale precipitated into the water, rather than dissolved, could cause health/safety issues. But I didn't think it would do any damage (or wear) to the heater, it moves the water out too fast for it do stay around and cause problems, like it does in the tank heaters.
No, she should lose it now. She has an uncontrolled medical issue that impacts her driving. An untreated epileptic is banned from driving, as are other medical conditions, depending on jurisdiction. Once it's under control, she should be able to get her license with restrictions and a medical caveat on it, like epileptics, and if cured, she can move back to a regular license.
Still requires a voluntary act. That's the current mens rea standard. Almost nothing requires mens rea as originally applied. She took no voluntary act. There was an involuntary act from within her digestive system, but no voluntary act on her part that resulted in a breach of law. You don't have to intend to drive drunk. You just have to drink to satisfy the current mens rea. That is the guilty act, drinking.
It's more explicitly repealed for drunk driving because you can't argue that you were too drunk to realize you were driving drunk. That argument, with strict mens rea should be conviction proof, so mens rea is officially repealed for that offense, though it isn't applied to any offense these days. You only need the intended act that results in the offense, not the intention to commit the offense.
Take a person who fires a gun in the air for new years. The bullet comes down and kills someone. They would likely be charged with a homicide of some degree. The fact that the act was intended to be harmeless is irrelevant. mens rea doesn't apply to anything anymore. The shooter intended to fire the weapon, and that's sufficient for homicide.
Violent crimes, like assault, are carried out by males much more often than women. One may link aggressiveness with asholity, and that's also gender-linked.
So, did you have any facts to back up your opinion that Y is unrelated to asshole-ness? Or are you just attacking others because you don't like their conclusion?
Same-gender assholes are easier to tolerate than cross-gender assholes?