Every owner has equal say. If you have a 0.001% vote and don't like it, trying to change 98% of the company's owners to agree with you is stupid. Seling your shares and moving the capital to a corporation that shares your view is the only logical option. Pointing out the logical option makes you a smug asshole, apparently.
Nope. If the best interests of the shareholders is to be green, even if that loses them profits, then you "must" do that. The law says that the shareholders must be priority #1, but not what that priority is. If the shareholders want to see good works done, then profit isn't top priority. The implication is that anonymous institutional investors care about profits above all else, but individual stockholders are less sociopathic.
But I find hte disney colors of even the Windows 8 desktop madening!
Oh, so the problem is that you don't know what the "desktop" is, vs Metro. I have 8.1 and I don't use metro, except for 3 seconds after a reboot. You don't have to use it.
The default color scheme looked the same for the "desktop" between 7 and 8.1.
Unless it'd demolished. Tearing down a house and putting it all in the dump doesn't cause any issue over either asbestos or lead. After all, you indicate that it can't last forever.
From a purely hypothetical legal perspective, the law is right and the Constitution wrong, until such time as the courts rule on it. So yes, violating the 4th amendment is legal, as you have no proof it is not legal. Now, if the courts rule against the practice and you are ordered to continue doing it, that would be an unlawful order.
If that agent decides to turn up the irritation on you full blast, he or she can then decide to declare that you technically need a Ziplock bag in order to bring those liquids through, even though he or she wouldn't normally do that.
How many TSA agents know their own rules? My wife went through with a hair product (in a small enough container), and it was confiscated because it wasn't in a ziplock. A single item must be in a ziplock? The rules read like a "maximum" and there was no explicit statement that a single 50 ml container must be in a bag or it would be confiscated. And I lost a 150 ml (max) tube of toothpaste that was a 30-40 ml "container" at the time (almost empty), and thus should have been allowed. The fact that it had a "max" higher than the minimum doesn't change the rules. No container greater than 100 ml, and that container was not more than 100 ml.
Both of those confiscations were when I believe we were compliant with the regulations as available to the flying public at the time and place. But the TSA agents don't seem to know the rules as presented to the public.
Atmospheric lead does not get rained out over the whole ocean evenly. It rains out over the polluted areas evenly enough, but that rain is concentrated when it falls over land. And that's consistent with their findings of runoff, distributing lead unevenly.
Go watch a bunch of the russion dashcam footage on youtube. Tell me if the car that moved to "avoid" the other car would have had better results going straight? Most of the time, when someone "dodges" a car, they dodge into the empty space, the same space the other car is moving into. It's not scientific, but it is a consistent observation I've had. If both people aimed at the other car, it wouldn't work, but if one does and the other doesn't, it works great. At least with the spinning car, you know they aren't aiming at anything (aiming implies control).
You look in the obvious places first. No point looking in the unusual places if you aren't even sure it should be there. If their hypothesis was right, they should find it in predictable places in the highest levels, so look there first.
The fact that they confirmed their hypothesis doesn't prove they had confirmation bias.
The rise in crime in the US, peaking in the '80s and dropping in the '90s correlated better with lead in fuel than any other measure measured. Maybe some of the violence in Africa and other places is related to the use of TEL in the gasoline?
Like asbestos, lead paint is a bigger problem when you are trying to fix it, than when you just ignore it. Unless you have children eating paint chips, lead paint has no link to health problems that I've ever seen. Just keep the paint on the walls, and its safer than trying to clean it off.
Aviation is a huge polution problem... I came to this realization when planes where grounded on sept 11th 2001, after about 24 to 48 hours the air was much cleaner smelling!
That was all in your head. Unless you live at an airport, the air is largely unaffected by the air traffic.
There's copyright on sheet music, and copyright on the performance (on a CD, concert DVD). There's no question that a performer owns the copyright on their creation. The acting contracts recognize this and assign copyright to the producers (or whoever). That wasn't an issue that seems argued by anyone in the court case.
The point of argument was whether the contract was violated, and if so, what remedy should be applied. The actor asserted that the contract was violated and because so, the copyright she assigned as an actor should be invalidated, returning copyright to her as the artist.
Just because so many on Slashdot don't understand copyright doesn't mean that the copyright issues were disputed at all. If you don't like that, consider it this way, she was defrauded by a contract made in bad faith. Movies have copyright. As a reparation for the wrong she suffered, she was awarded partial ownership of the copyright for the work she added to. Again, the issue is the contract, and the copyright doesn't enter in, except as an undisputed award for a disputed contract disagreement.
But all the idiots on Slashdot focus on the undisputed copyright issues as the major contention point. It wasn't.
'A performer owns copyright of their performance, unless otherwise agreed.', this may be true but it has to be significant enough to warrant copyright in the first place
That was a given that wasn't argued for or against by either side, so I'm curious how you think that's a critical issue.
He violated policy willingly until he was fired *before* looking for a new job? He obviously wasn't too bright. When I was in that situation, I started looking for a new job almost immediately. One of the big secrets to finding a job is something nobody told me, and I had to find out for myself. It's much easier to find a job while employed. If you are unemployed and looking for a job, everyone presumes there's something wrong with you.
Why would they punch me? Both you and the A/C seemed to assume that I did something offensive. What did I say to convey that? I just objected to the use of the term "wage slave".
You know what else you can do to clerks at stores? You can vent about other problems you had before you got to the store, and they usually have to just stand there and take it. You can go in, blame the clerk for potholes, how my boss treated you earlier in the day, getting dumped by a girl, etc., and few a little better.
That's what my 7 year old does. Anyone in a uniform or with a name tag, he walks up to and talks to, endlessly, until I drag him away.
It's behind a paywall. No, I won't read it before commenting on it. It's not worth the money or time. I presume it says it's possible but not practical, unless done by a government or world consortium. The return is too long and too risky.
I wouldn't think that there would be any way to shut them off after tower was cleared that would be safe. Without that thrust, the shuttle would not be able to clear gravity, and would be too slow to glide. It would take ejection of the capsule with parachutes (something not on it) to allow that to be survivable. If the boosters were liquid, how would that have been survivable?
Holding the wage slaves accountable for what their corporate masters decree is pointless and petty.
It's not slavery when it's voluntary. The worker can walk out at any time. That they choose not to indicates that they accept the abuse and accept the poor policies.
With all the over-engineering, I'm surprised the heat shield didn't have a thin metalic honeycomb over it to protect it from impacts, then, on reentry, the 'shield" would burn off and need to be replaced for every launch. The problem with the solid boosters is that they had a specific operating range, and were operated outside that temperature range. They should have still functioned, but they shouldn't have been asked to.
Slashdot Mirror
Every owner has equal say. If you have a 0.001% vote and don't like it, trying to change 98% of the company's owners to agree with you is stupid. Seling your shares and moving the capital to a corporation that shares your view is the only logical option. Pointing out the logical option makes you a smug asshole, apparently.
And that smug drives price up, which is good for shareholders.
Nope. If the best interests of the shareholders is to be green, even if that loses them profits, then you "must" do that. The law says that the shareholders must be priority #1, but not what that priority is. If the shareholders want to see good works done, then profit isn't top priority. The implication is that anonymous institutional investors care about profits above all else, but individual stockholders are less sociopathic.
The suicide rate at Apple factories is lower than the suicide rate at US factories.
But don't let your lies stop you from an irrational rant.
That's how the idealistic like to think about it, but in practice, you are 100% wrong. How you would like it to be has no effect on how it is.
But I find hte disney colors of even the Windows 8 desktop madening!
Oh, so the problem is that you don't know what the "desktop" is, vs Metro. I have 8.1 and I don't use metro, except for 3 seconds after a reboot. You don't have to use it.
The default color scheme looked the same for the "desktop" between 7 and 8.1.
Yeah, they killed some of the "easy" search options, and turned them into more obscure options.
Unless it'd demolished. Tearing down a house and putting it all in the dump doesn't cause any issue over either asbestos or lead. After all, you indicate that it can't last forever.
From a purely hypothetical legal perspective, the law is right and the Constitution wrong, until such time as the courts rule on it. So yes, violating the 4th amendment is legal, as you have no proof it is not legal. Now, if the courts rule against the practice and you are ordered to continue doing it, that would be an unlawful order.
If that agent decides to turn up the irritation on you full blast, he or she can then decide to declare that you technically need a Ziplock bag in order to bring those liquids through, even though he or she wouldn't normally do that.
How many TSA agents know their own rules? My wife went through with a hair product (in a small enough container), and it was confiscated because it wasn't in a ziplock. A single item must be in a ziplock? The rules read like a "maximum" and there was no explicit statement that a single 50 ml container must be in a bag or it would be confiscated. And I lost a 150 ml (max) tube of toothpaste that was a 30-40 ml "container" at the time (almost empty), and thus should have been allowed. The fact that it had a "max" higher than the minimum doesn't change the rules. No container greater than 100 ml, and that container was not more than 100 ml.
Both of those confiscations were when I believe we were compliant with the regulations as available to the flying public at the time and place. But the TSA agents don't seem to know the rules as presented to the public.
Atmospheric lead does not get rained out over the whole ocean evenly. It rains out over the polluted areas evenly enough, but that rain is concentrated when it falls over land. And that's consistent with their findings of runoff, distributing lead unevenly.
Go watch a bunch of the russion dashcam footage on youtube. Tell me if the car that moved to "avoid" the other car would have had better results going straight? Most of the time, when someone "dodges" a car, they dodge into the empty space, the same space the other car is moving into. It's not scientific, but it is a consistent observation I've had. If both people aimed at the other car, it wouldn't work, but if one does and the other doesn't, it works great. At least with the spinning car, you know they aren't aiming at anything (aiming implies control).
You look in the obvious places first. No point looking in the unusual places if you aren't even sure it should be there. If their hypothesis was right, they should find it in predictable places in the highest levels, so look there first.
The fact that they confirmed their hypothesis doesn't prove they had confirmation bias.
The rise in crime in the US, peaking in the '80s and dropping in the '90s correlated better with lead in fuel than any other measure measured. Maybe some of the violence in Africa and other places is related to the use of TEL in the gasoline?
Like asbestos, lead paint is a bigger problem when you are trying to fix it, than when you just ignore it. Unless you have children eating paint chips, lead paint has no link to health problems that I've ever seen. Just keep the paint on the walls, and its safer than trying to clean it off.
Aviation is a huge polution problem... I came to this realization when planes where grounded on sept 11th 2001, after about 24 to 48 hours the air was much cleaner smelling!
That was all in your head. Unless you live at an airport, the air is largely unaffected by the air traffic.
There's copyright on sheet music, and copyright on the performance (on a CD, concert DVD). There's no question that a performer owns the copyright on their creation. The acting contracts recognize this and assign copyright to the producers (or whoever). That wasn't an issue that seems argued by anyone in the court case.
The point of argument was whether the contract was violated, and if so, what remedy should be applied. The actor asserted that the contract was violated and because so, the copyright she assigned as an actor should be invalidated, returning copyright to her as the artist.
Just because so many on Slashdot don't understand copyright doesn't mean that the copyright issues were disputed at all. If you don't like that, consider it this way, she was defrauded by a contract made in bad faith. Movies have copyright. As a reparation for the wrong she suffered, she was awarded partial ownership of the copyright for the work she added to. Again, the issue is the contract, and the copyright doesn't enter in, except as an undisputed award for a disputed contract disagreement.
But all the idiots on Slashdot focus on the undisputed copyright issues as the major contention point. It wasn't.
'A performer owns copyright of their performance, unless otherwise agreed.', this may be true but it has to be significant enough to warrant copyright in the first place
That was a given that wasn't argued for or against by either side, so I'm curious how you think that's a critical issue.
He violated policy willingly until he was fired *before* looking for a new job? He obviously wasn't too bright. When I was in that situation, I started looking for a new job almost immediately. One of the big secrets to finding a job is something nobody told me, and I had to find out for myself. It's much easier to find a job while employed. If you are unemployed and looking for a job, everyone presumes there's something wrong with you.
Why would they punch me? Both you and the A/C seemed to assume that I did something offensive. What did I say to convey that? I just objected to the use of the term "wage slave".
You know what else you can do to clerks at stores? You can vent about other problems you had before you got to the store, and they usually have to just stand there and take it. You can go in, blame the clerk for potholes, how my boss treated you earlier in the day, getting dumped by a girl, etc., and few a little better.
That's what my 7 year old does. Anyone in a uniform or with a name tag, he walks up to and talks to, endlessly, until I drag him away.
It's behind a paywall. No, I won't read it before commenting on it. It's not worth the money or time. I presume it says it's possible but not practical, unless done by a government or world consortium. The return is too long and too risky.
I wouldn't think that there would be any way to shut them off after tower was cleared that would be safe. Without that thrust, the shuttle would not be able to clear gravity, and would be too slow to glide. It would take ejection of the capsule with parachutes (something not on it) to allow that to be survivable. If the boosters were liquid, how would that have been survivable?
Holding the wage slaves accountable for what their corporate masters decree is pointless and petty.
It's not slavery when it's voluntary. The worker can walk out at any time. That they choose not to indicates that they accept the abuse and accept the poor policies.
With all the over-engineering, I'm surprised the heat shield didn't have a thin metalic honeycomb over it to protect it from impacts, then, on reentry, the 'shield" would burn off and need to be replaced for every launch. The problem with the solid boosters is that they had a specific operating range, and were operated outside that temperature range. They should have still functioned, but they shouldn't have been asked to.