Governments auction off radio spectrum. There should be auctions for domain names with the money going into the public coffers, rather than being free money for registrars.
Yes. It's an staggeringly idiotic headline. People do sometimes metonymically refer to governments by their location, such as "Washington did this," or "Whitehall did that." But the capital of Pennsylvania is Harrisburg, not Philadelphia.
Socket 940 Processors use ECC, registered DIMMs. Socket 939 processors use unregistered DIMMs. So, making the processors different by one pin keeps people from using a processor in a motherboard which won't work with it.
What's the point in using the same socket if your old processor won't work with it anyway? Changing the socket keeps people from thinking wrongly that they can use an incompatible processor with the motherboard in question.
I don't see that it even implies it. It's a small matter, but DiBona had me worried that I didn't speak English as a native language. Well, I'm now convinced that the term used to imply some sort of assumption of responsibility since the old definitions seem to relate to Godparents and the like but it doesn't anymore. Sponsorship means money. It doesn't even imply that there is control over the receiver.
I don't think that the definitions that have to do with sponsoring a candidate (say for West Point) or an apprentice are what people think of when a company sponsors a project. For example, lots of companies sponsor Nascar teams. That doesn't imply that those companies tell the drivers how to drive their cars.
Sponsorship doesn't imply stewardship
on
Google And Open Source
·
· Score: 4, Informative
sponsor (verb, trans): provide funds for (a project or activity or the person carrying it out)
Isn't that a much higher number? 40% may get a monthly payment from the government at one particular time, but a large proportion of the population lives to be 65, and thus many people get a major portion of their income from the government at some point in their lives. I'm having trouble see what you think the policy or political implications of that are. I'm also failing to see where the meltdown is. Maybe you should look into this further before being a Cassandra.
Uh. They pay for Reuters and AP wire services. I do think that Google News is fair use, but that's a dumb argument as to why the newspapers are wrong on this.
What idiot would think that the stories were "brought to you by Google"? Looking at the current Google News home page, I see "Reuters", "Forbes", "Washington Post", "MSNBC", "TSN.ca", etc.... It's seems pretty clear to me and everyone else that uses the service that Google is cataloging the news, not bringing you the news.
I agree that all government checks are relevant to the question of who gets government checks, but you proceeded to make bogus claims for the number of people getting government paychecks. I then gave you the correct statistics on that. Don't blame me for your sloppy use of terms.
If we consider the number of people who get some payment--either check or direct deposit--of any kind from the government, then I imagine the number is quite large, since many many people get tax refunds.
Hmm. How does a Social Security check count as a paycheck?
Merriam-Webster Online:
"Paycheck: a check in payment of wages or salary"
My father gets a check from Social Security, but he doesn't get a paycheck.
According to the BLS, 20 million Americans of the civilian workforce work for the Government. People in uniform account for about a million more. That's compared to the 120 million who work in the private sector. So, in short, only about 15% of the US workforce works for the government, whether that be federal, state, or local. That's far less than the majority that you speculated it might be.
No. You won't get in trouble. Legal tender only applies to the settlement of debts, not to purchases. If I open a shop and label everything with the weight of gold which I am willing to trade for each of the items, I am perfectly within my rights to demand payment in that form for the items in question. I doubt it would be good for business, since few people carry around lumps of gold, but I'm perfectly within my rights to do so.
Question: I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?
Answer: The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
There's no requirement that anyone accepts federal currency. Stores routinely refuse to take large bills. Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender for settling debts which are denominated in dollars. If I owe you $20 and I give you a $20 bill to settle that debt, then you can't complain that I didn't give you gold coins instead. That's all that legal tender amounts to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender
Newspapers can spin a story to make something which is reasonable behavior sound like a scandal. If you haven't noticed that, you haven't read enough of what qualifies as journalism today.
Nothing is stopping any group of people from considering any particular item an item of exchange. If a group of people want to conduct all of their transactions in ounces of gold rather than dollars then that's their perogative. I've never understood why some Libertarians are opposed to the government producing another item of exchange for the rest of us to use.
Wow. I had no idea that there were still people who irrationally held on to the gold standard. Well, if you think the Federal Reserve Act is unconstitutional, why don't you sue the government and let the courts decide? The rest of us will just be glad that we don't suffer the consequences of a policy with no rationale.
Slashdot Mirror
Governments auction off radio spectrum. There should be auctions for domain names with the money going into the public coffers, rather than being free money for registrars.
The links above don't work. Go here instead and click on the links.
Quicktime
The politicization of science is an important issue for science. Why don't you think this is a science story?
Yes. It's an staggeringly idiotic headline. People do sometimes metonymically refer to governments by their location, such as "Washington did this," or "Whitehall did that." But the capital of Pennsylvania is Harrisburg, not Philadelphia.
Map of Mozilla HQ
Map of Google HQ
Socket 940 Processors use ECC, registered DIMMs. Socket 939 processors use unregistered DIMMs. So, making the processors different by one pin keeps people from using a processor in a motherboard which won't work with it.
What's the point in using the same socket if your old processor won't work with it anyway? Changing the socket keeps people from thinking wrongly that they can use an incompatible processor with the motherboard in question.
So, Slashdot is now referring to articles which will be up tomorrow?
I don't see that it even implies it. It's a small matter, but DiBona had me worried that I didn't speak English as a native language. Well, I'm now convinced that the term used to imply some sort of assumption of responsibility since the old definitions seem to relate to Godparents and the like but it doesn't anymore. Sponsorship means money. It doesn't even imply that there is control over the receiver.
I don't think that the definitions that have to do with sponsoring a candidate (say for West Point) or an apprentice are what people think of when a company sponsors a project. For example, lots of companies sponsor Nascar teams. That doesn't imply that those companies tell the drivers how to drive their cars.
Isn't that a much higher number? 40% may get a monthly payment from the government at one particular time, but a large proportion of the population lives to be 65, and thus many people get a major portion of their income from the government at some point in their lives. I'm having trouble see what you think the policy or political implications of that are. I'm also failing to see where the meltdown is. Maybe you should look into this further before being a Cassandra.
Uh. They pay for Reuters and AP wire services. I do think that Google News is fair use, but that's a dumb argument as to why the newspapers are wrong on this.
What idiot would think that the stories were "brought to you by Google"? Looking at the current Google News home page, I see "Reuters", "Forbes", "Washington Post", "MSNBC", "TSN.ca", etc.... It's seems pretty clear to me and everyone else that uses the service that Google is cataloging the news, not bringing you the news.
I agree that all government checks are relevant to the question of who gets government checks, but you proceeded to make bogus claims for the number of people getting government paychecks. I then gave you the correct statistics on that. Don't blame me for your sloppy use of terms. If we consider the number of people who get some payment--either check or direct deposit--of any kind from the government, then I imagine the number is quite large, since many many people get tax refunds.
Hmm. How does a Social Security check count as a paycheck? Merriam-Webster Online: "Paycheck: a check in payment of wages or salary" My father gets a check from Social Security, but he doesn't get a paycheck.
According to the BLS, 20 million Americans of the civilian workforce work for the Government. People in uniform account for about a million more. That's compared to the 120 million who work in the private sector. So, in short, only about 15% of the US workforce works for the government, whether that be federal, state, or local. That's far less than the majority that you speculated it might be.
There's no requirement that anyone accepts federal currency. Stores routinely refuse to take large bills. Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender for settling debts which are denominated in dollars. If I owe you $20 and I give you a $20 bill to settle that debt, then you can't complain that I didn't give you gold coins instead. That's all that legal tender amounts to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender
If they do continually revert to the press release, the page will be locked and sent to arbitration just like any other page.
Newspapers can spin a story to make something which is reasonable behavior sound like a scandal. If you haven't noticed that, you haven't read enough of what qualifies as journalism today.
Nothing is stopping any group of people from considering any particular item an item of exchange. If a group of people want to conduct all of their transactions in ounces of gold rather than dollars then that's their perogative. I've never understood why some Libertarians are opposed to the government producing another item of exchange for the rest of us to use.
That's true. A lot of politicians' pages need attention from the public. However, I hope that doesn't mean that we'll end up with a lot of crap edits.
Wow. I had no idea that there were still people who irrationally held on to the gold standard. Well, if you think the Federal Reserve Act is unconstitutional, why don't you sue the government and let the courts decide? The rest of us will just be glad that we don't suffer the consequences of a policy with no rationale.