A business deducts their house, food, and operational expenses that a person doesn't get to, before they claim a "net profit". A person is measured on income (AGI), not wealth creation/extraction.
Why would you fine a person based on revenue, and a corporation based on profit? Either revenue for both, or profit for both would be the "fair" solution.
So, about 6 hours revenue (assuming an even revenue distribution, in reality, about 2 business hours revenue)? This is the same as fining a person on minimum wage $15.
Woo hoo, a $15 (effective) fine on AT&T. That'll show them.
No, the "dark" side of the moon is the name for the "far" side of the moon. It doesn't imply it's "dark" as in shadow from the sun, but dark as in we can't see it. It was named before people understood it, so yes, it was named poorly, but that's how it's named.
However, it will be very difficult to monitor and trigger such an installation from earth seeing that we don't have a good satellite constellation coverage around the moon.
If we were wanting to build a station, we'd launch a satellite into L4/L5. Or a long ring around the moon. Have you seen the proposal to ring the moon in solar panels? Make that ring, and have the launch station powered and communicated with through the ring around the moon.
I'm interested in the notion of a rocket on the moon that can reach a NEO but NOT the Earth.
Yet, you assume it impossible and don't try to solve the problem.
Alas, ain't going to happen. If a rocket can do lunar escape speed, it can hit the Earth.
You are assuming "rocket", when I put no such constraint on the "launch facility". Your failure was one of imagination. A facility on the dark side with a railgun launch and insufficient fuel to turn to hit Earth, but enough to steer to hit a NEO would meet the requirements.
It always amazes me the people on slashdot who think that if they can't solve something in 10 seconds, it's impossible.
Note, I never said "practical", and I'd assume that a complete physical compromise of the base would allow the new owners to reduce the launch speed to a sub-escape velocity such that the launch will result in a Earth or Moon impact, and the steering would be used to pick the location on Earth hit. But that level of compromise would be quite substantial, unless there are multiple bases on the moon, which is a different design constraint. And the level of sophistication to launch an moon invasion of a guarded facility would be enough to just make a railgun on the near side and launch rocks at the earth to a similar result, so there'd be no reason for anyone to consider a physical penetration of the facility to be a consideration. When someone is close to the ability on the moon, they could build nukes on the Earth, or you just launch all the nukes into the sun.
So your answer is the typical "If I can't think of a solution in 10 seconds, that's proof it's impossible" Slashdot answer.
I can think of multiple ways to solve the answer. But now, it'll be a personal issue where you'll assert I'm wrong, rather than thinking about the issue, so there's no point to try to describe how to "solve" the issue.
Gross revenue is income, including what they pay to the drivers. Net revenue is a smaller number, in this case, reporting gross after paying off drivers. Net revenue is rarely used, as it can be any number between gross revenue and profit. That's why more specific numbers like EBIDTA are used. They are a specific reporting of revenue that is neither full gross, nor profit. If they aren't using the official terms, they they might as well be made up. Investor aspirational statements are always made up numbers.
The most sense is to build a nuclear launch facility on the dark side of the moon, with rockets that are designed to be accurate in space, but unable to target the Earth, so there's no chance for it to be used against us. Though, not sure if that's possible. You want them in a stable orbit (the moon is moving away, not closer) and you want them as far out of the gravity well as possible. Aside from a firing station in a lagrange point, which is less stable than the moon, the moon seems the most logical place for anti NEO nukes.
The impact of a large NEO is in the energy being imparted to the planet surface, ejecting additional material, earthquakes, tsunamis and other impact artifacts. The "damage" from heating of the air on entry is inconsequential. So spreading the entry to millions of small pieces that burn up in the atmosphere is a better outcome.
Most likely, the DJ bought the music under the same structure as I do, meaning that the right of public performance was not included. I don't know where I can buy music that has that right included (except for music that's under a permissive license).
Every DJ I know carries the BMI/ASCAP license for it. You do it or you get sued. The venue is *never* responsible, as they'd never know if one of the titles was on which list. Only the DJ can know, so only the DJ would be the reasonable person to have that license.
Your method of expecting the venue to properly license things played by 3rd parties would require the 3rd party supply an exhaustive list of all possible titles, for the venue to vet themselves.
More practical (what actual DJs do) is to have the DJ check the new additions against the licensing bodies, and sort their collections to "legal" and "not-legal". If a DJ has sorted his collection that way, and on the day, the properly-licensed DJ takes requests for 5 titles in the "illegal" pile, what should happen? In this case, there were only a handful that were "illegal" so were those the only ones played, or were the others all licensed?
Fallout NV was too linear for an open world. You can go anywhere in the world, but if you don't do things in a pretty specific way, you'll be hitting dead ends. Fallout 3 was "better" because it was easier. If you put in the time, you'll finish. You don't have to spend as much time Googling as playing, trying to find the best place to go do things, so you can get to the right level (character or equipment) to be able to jump an excessively hard hurdle.
I've not seen anything that supports that. The people who are underweight, but not malnutritioned are healthier than those who are "average", so long as they have the same cardio capacity. The underweight marathon runner will be better off than the power lifter who never burns a single calorie aerobically, and the professional football player will be better off than the underweight hacker who walks to the fridge and back as his only exercise. But for the same level of general activity, more weight is *always* worse for you. At least from the studies I've seen. The problem is that getting groups to adequately study is hard, so the studies in general lump people together, and you get the "more muscle is better" because those people do more, not because "muscle" accounts for any of the improvement.
You're mistaken on several points.
Sweden would have to get the permission of the UK to extradite Assange.
I never said anything contrary to that statement, so I fail to see how that supports your statement that I'm mistaken.
It isn't common for prosecutors to go to a foreign country to interview fugitives from justice, which is what Assange is.
Yet, when people complained it was so unusual, there were examples posted of when Sweden did just that.
And he's not a fugitive.
"a person who has escaped from captivity or is in hiding."
He didn't "escape" from Sweden. He left with permission. He isn't "hiding". Everyone knows where he is. He just isn't going out of his way to turn himself in, after having announced his location and intentions to the authorities. I don't know what that is, but it isn't "fugitive".
They probably expect to file charges after the interview and go to trial, so there is even less incentive to go to a foreign country to interview him when the key events will all happen in Sweden.
Previously, Sweden has conducted interviews over the phone. No reason to go there. You have heard of "phones" haven't you?
Assange is getting far more favorable treatment that most fugitives that have jumped bail, and yet his defenders keep crying foul, as if he was being subjected to terrible injustice. That is nonsense. Complete rubbish.
But he never jumped bail. He wasn't under any legal obligation to remain (bail, charges pending, or anything else), and had explicit permission to leave Sweden. So your assertions of "fugitive" are once again baseless and contrary to the dictionary.
His case has been to TWO supreme courts in two different countries and he keeps losing. This has all been to avoid extradition and questioning. Not imprisonment, just questioning. That seems unusually favorable treatment.
He has requested questioning since the beginning. It was denied. Why did Sweden refuse to interview him earlier? That certainly sounds like extraordinary treatment. They are doing it now, what has changed?
How is it that you think (mistakenly) that he has somehow been mistreated or short changed? How?
I never said such things, so I don't need to defend them. Stop lying. It only proves the point that you know you are wrong, when you must lie as the only option to support your (knowingly) false accusations.
Assange isn't being extradited to the United States, he is being extradited to Sweden.
And, if Assange is extradited to the Sweden, then extradited anywhere else (the US may not extradite him directly, but may bounce him around, if they can, to find the most favorable place to extradite him from), what will you do? Eat your hat?
The level of "must extradite" is unusual. There must be some other reason that they didn't interview him before now. They have done this with others, and didn't have an issue with a remote interview. He isn't asking for unusual treatment. He's asking for standard treatment. Sweden won't give it to him. Why?
No, the crime exists everywhere. He committed sexual fraud. Fraud is a lie for personal gain. Sexual fraud is a lie for sexual gain, which is a subset of "fraud". Most fraud wouldn't be actionable for such a limited personal arrangement. But it is a fraud. The crime is reported as "rape" because the "fraud" issue in Sweden is clear that sexual fraud is illegal. Conditional consent was given, and the conditions weren't met, so the sex was deemed non-consensual after the fact. That kind of "rape" is not illegal in most places.
Note, this isn't an issue of changing one's mind the night after. This would be the same as in the US, if you asked your partner "do you have AIDS" and they say "no" and you later found out they had it and knew it, Is that rape? Not in the US, but because AIDS is deadly, it has been pursued as a criminal offense.
There is no such thing as "good weight". People like Michael Clarke Duncan still die "young" from heart problems. The strain on the heart for pumping blood is related to the mass pumped through, not the percentage of it that's "fat". Arterial constriction/hardening through lipid action is a separate issue, but for general heart failure, and a variety of heart diseases, there's nothing that indicates there's "good" weight, just that any added is harder.
When I played in a band, the establishments all made us sign that we were "legal", and absolved them of all risk (as much as a contract can do so). In fact many bands looking for exposure will play for free or even pay to play, though no band in that situation would be playing in a place with a cover charge (unless such place charges a cover for all nights, regardless of entertainment).
Slashdot Mirror
The temperature increase isn't that much. Go on, calculate it if you like.
A business deducts their house, food, and operational expenses that a person doesn't get to, before they claim a "net profit". A person is measured on income (AGI), not wealth creation/extraction.
Where were you Tuesday the 10th of Jan, 2009? I'm not saying you beat your wife, but if you can't prove you weren't beating your wife on that date...
Why would you fine a person based on revenue, and a corporation based on profit? Either revenue for both, or profit for both would be the "fair" solution.
Given that most "fines" aren't under $100, they'd think $15 was low for a fine, not that it's a trivial expense for someone on minimum wage.
So, about 6 hours revenue (assuming an even revenue distribution, in reality, about 2 business hours revenue)? This is the same as fining a person on minimum wage $15.
Woo hoo, a $15 (effective) fine on AT&T. That'll show them.
However, it will be very difficult to monitor and trigger such an installation from earth seeing that we don't have a good satellite constellation coverage around the moon.
If we were wanting to build a station, we'd launch a satellite into L4/L5. Or a long ring around the moon. Have you seen the proposal to ring the moon in solar panels? Make that ring, and have the launch station powered and communicated with through the ring around the moon.
I'm interested in the notion of a rocket on the moon that can reach a NEO but NOT the Earth.
Yet, you assume it impossible and don't try to solve the problem.
Alas, ain't going to happen. If a rocket can do lunar escape speed, it can hit the Earth.
You are assuming "rocket", when I put no such constraint on the "launch facility". Your failure was one of imagination. A facility on the dark side with a railgun launch and insufficient fuel to turn to hit Earth, but enough to steer to hit a NEO would meet the requirements.
It always amazes me the people on slashdot who think that if they can't solve something in 10 seconds, it's impossible.
Note, I never said "practical", and I'd assume that a complete physical compromise of the base would allow the new owners to reduce the launch speed to a sub-escape velocity such that the launch will result in a Earth or Moon impact, and the steering would be used to pick the location on Earth hit. But that level of compromise would be quite substantial, unless there are multiple bases on the moon, which is a different design constraint. And the level of sophistication to launch an moon invasion of a guarded facility would be enough to just make a railgun on the near side and launch rocks at the earth to a similar result, so there'd be no reason for anyone to consider a physical penetration of the facility to be a consideration. When someone is close to the ability on the moon, they could build nukes on the Earth, or you just launch all the nukes into the sun.
So your answer is the typical "If I can't think of a solution in 10 seconds, that's proof it's impossible" Slashdot answer.
I can think of multiple ways to solve the answer. But now, it'll be a personal issue where you'll assert I'm wrong, rather than thinking about the issue, so there's no point to try to describe how to "solve" the issue.
Gross revenue is income, including what they pay to the drivers. Net revenue is a smaller number, in this case, reporting gross after paying off drivers. Net revenue is rarely used, as it can be any number between gross revenue and profit. That's why more specific numbers like EBIDTA are used. They are a specific reporting of revenue that is neither full gross, nor profit. If they aren't using the official terms, they they might as well be made up. Investor aspirational statements are always made up numbers.
The most sense is to build a nuclear launch facility on the dark side of the moon, with rockets that are designed to be accurate in space, but unable to target the Earth, so there's no chance for it to be used against us. Though, not sure if that's possible. You want them in a stable orbit (the moon is moving away, not closer) and you want them as far out of the gravity well as possible. Aside from a firing station in a lagrange point, which is less stable than the moon, the moon seems the most logical place for anti NEO nukes.
The impact of a large NEO is in the energy being imparted to the planet surface, ejecting additional material, earthquakes, tsunamis and other impact artifacts. The "damage" from heating of the air on entry is inconsequential. So spreading the entry to millions of small pieces that burn up in the atmosphere is a better outcome.
Where's The Intercept, who is the one served with the notice?
Then please define "fraud" for a "sensible country".
Most likely, the DJ bought the music under the same structure as I do, meaning that the right of public performance was not included. I don't know where I can buy music that has that right included (except for music that's under a permissive license).
Every DJ I know carries the BMI/ASCAP license for it. You do it or you get sued. The venue is *never* responsible, as they'd never know if one of the titles was on which list. Only the DJ can know, so only the DJ would be the reasonable person to have that license.
Your method of expecting the venue to properly license things played by 3rd parties would require the 3rd party supply an exhaustive list of all possible titles, for the venue to vet themselves.
More practical (what actual DJs do) is to have the DJ check the new additions against the licensing bodies, and sort their collections to "legal" and "not-legal". If a DJ has sorted his collection that way, and on the day, the properly-licensed DJ takes requests for 5 titles in the "illegal" pile, what should happen? In this case, there were only a handful that were "illegal" so were those the only ones played, or were the others all licensed?
Fallout NV was too linear for an open world. You can go anywhere in the world, but if you don't do things in a pretty specific way, you'll be hitting dead ends. Fallout 3 was "better" because it was easier. If you put in the time, you'll finish. You don't have to spend as much time Googling as playing, trying to find the best place to go do things, so you can get to the right level (character or equipment) to be able to jump an excessively hard hurdle.
What are the "considerations"?
I never used the word "considerations" so I can't help explain what I meant. Perhaps you should read slower, and with less frothing at the mouth.
The argument that passed Sweden was probably that consent given to lies isn't consent, so sexual fraud is non-violent rape, but still rape.
I've not seen anything that supports that. The people who are underweight, but not malnutritioned are healthier than those who are "average", so long as they have the same cardio capacity. The underweight marathon runner will be better off than the power lifter who never burns a single calorie aerobically, and the professional football player will be better off than the underweight hacker who walks to the fridge and back as his only exercise. But for the same level of general activity, more weight is *always* worse for you. At least from the studies I've seen. The problem is that getting groups to adequately study is hard, so the studies in general lump people together, and you get the "more muscle is better" because those people do more, not because "muscle" accounts for any of the improvement.
You're mistaken on several points. Sweden would have to get the permission of the UK to extradite Assange.
I never said anything contrary to that statement, so I fail to see how that supports your statement that I'm mistaken.
It isn't common for prosecutors to go to a foreign country to interview fugitives from justice, which is what Assange is.
Yet, when people complained it was so unusual, there were examples posted of when Sweden did just that.
And he's not a fugitive.
"a person who has escaped from captivity or is in hiding."
He didn't "escape" from Sweden. He left with permission. He isn't "hiding". Everyone knows where he is. He just isn't going out of his way to turn himself in, after having announced his location and intentions to the authorities. I don't know what that is, but it isn't "fugitive".
They probably expect to file charges after the interview and go to trial, so there is even less incentive to go to a foreign country to interview him when the key events will all happen in Sweden.
Previously, Sweden has conducted interviews over the phone. No reason to go there. You have heard of "phones" haven't you?
Assange is getting far more favorable treatment that most fugitives that have jumped bail, and yet his defenders keep crying foul, as if he was being subjected to terrible injustice. That is nonsense. Complete rubbish.
But he never jumped bail. He wasn't under any legal obligation to remain (bail, charges pending, or anything else), and had explicit permission to leave Sweden. So your assertions of "fugitive" are once again baseless and contrary to the dictionary.
His case has been to TWO supreme courts in two different countries and he keeps losing. This has all been to avoid extradition and questioning. Not imprisonment, just questioning. That seems unusually favorable treatment.
He has requested questioning since the beginning. It was denied. Why did Sweden refuse to interview him earlier? That certainly sounds like extraordinary treatment. They are doing it now, what has changed?
How is it that you think (mistakenly) that he has somehow been mistreated or short changed? How?
I never said such things, so I don't need to defend them. Stop lying. It only proves the point that you know you are wrong, when you must lie as the only option to support your (knowingly) false accusations.
Assange isn't being extradited to the United States, he is being extradited to Sweden.
And, if Assange is extradited to the Sweden, then extradited anywhere else (the US may not extradite him directly, but may bounce him around, if they can, to find the most favorable place to extradite him from), what will you do? Eat your hat?
The level of "must extradite" is unusual. There must be some other reason that they didn't interview him before now. They have done this with others, and didn't have an issue with a remote interview. He isn't asking for unusual treatment. He's asking for standard treatment. Sweden won't give it to him. Why?
No, the crime exists everywhere. He committed sexual fraud. Fraud is a lie for personal gain. Sexual fraud is a lie for sexual gain, which is a subset of "fraud". Most fraud wouldn't be actionable for such a limited personal arrangement. But it is a fraud. The crime is reported as "rape" because the "fraud" issue in Sweden is clear that sexual fraud is illegal. Conditional consent was given, and the conditions weren't met, so the sex was deemed non-consensual after the fact. That kind of "rape" is not illegal in most places.
Note, this isn't an issue of changing one's mind the night after. This would be the same as in the US, if you asked your partner "do you have AIDS" and they say "no" and you later found out they had it and knew it, Is that rape? Not in the US, but because AIDS is deadly, it has been pursued as a criminal offense.
That's the closest US analog I can come up with.
There is no such thing as "good weight". People like Michael Clarke Duncan still die "young" from heart problems. The strain on the heart for pumping blood is related to the mass pumped through, not the percentage of it that's "fat". Arterial constriction/hardening through lipid action is a separate issue, but for general heart failure, and a variety of heart diseases, there's nothing that indicates there's "good" weight, just that any added is harder.
Were these liquor licensed in college towns? That's the type of establishment I was dealing with.
When I played in a band, the establishments all made us sign that we were "legal", and absolved them of all risk (as much as a contract can do so). In fact many bands looking for exposure will play for free or even pay to play, though no band in that situation would be playing in a place with a cover charge (unless such place charges a cover for all nights, regardless of entertainment).