You're close. You don't have a legal right to receive their service, but they do have a legal obligation to provide the service, because they are a common carrier. In exchange for legal considerations that the government grants them, they agree to certain terms of the government's...like "serve everyone".
But yeah, they also have some severe restrictions on what they're not allowed to carry, and they err way on the side of caution. If you told them "this is a block of lead, and I plan to melt it for bullets", they may well refuse, and by some legal interpretations they might *have* to.
Irradiation isn't 100% at inactivating C.Botulinum. Neither is heat pasteurization (to the level that your honey is still, well, honey). There's no guaranteed safe way of making honey edible for infants.
Guys, the honey-botulism thing is like eggs-salmonella. Not every egg has salmonella, and if you eat the clean ones raw, you'll be fine. Not all honey has C.Botulinum spores (which cause it), but if you give some that is contaminated to a young child, they will be badly affected because their gut bacteria hasn't had time to develop--it's a matter of growth, not resistance through exposure. You played the odds and won. Most kids that eat honey will be fine and most batches aren't contaminated. Some of them will get a bad batch and will be less fortunate.
Your assertion certainly isn't true for everyone. Yeah, some habits will change--people who _only_ download because it's a free and easy way to kill time will replace it with some other free and easy activity. That's a huge majority of pirates. But there's still a large number of people who pirate i.e. specific tv shows because they are interested in that particular show, and pirating is the easiest way to do it right now. Take away pirating and they still want their show--hell, some of them are already spending money because they decided that streaming from a storefront is more convenient than hunting torrents. Enough of those pirates have disposable income they're willing to spend that yes, it will make a difference in overall sales (if actually enforced).
used to work in the digital video industry...does that make me a corporate shill? There's still massive holes in the business model but it's not all bad, especially when streaming products are sold _as rentals_ so there's no "but I don't really own it" argument.
stodgy [stoj-ee] adjective, stodgier, stodgiest. 1. heavy, dull, or uninteresting; tediously commonplace; boring: a stodgy Victorian novel. 2. of a thick, semisolid consistency; heavy, as food. 3. stocky; thick-set. 4. old-fashioned; unduly formal and traditional: a stodgy old gentleman. 5. dull; graceless; inelegant: a stodgy business suit.
And watch my rent go up, or watch the landlord sell the place out from under me, or get foreclosed on, or decide to move in themselves? No thanks. I'm also paying a premium for stability. Yes it's dependent on keeping a stable job, but it really cuts down on the number of things that could force me to move. Peace of mind is invaluable.
There are some regions where property tax hikes can really screw you over in that situation, but I guess in that case your house would be worth enough that you can sell it and downsize.
I don't see my home as an investment. I'm buying the ability to knock down walls and move power outlets if I want to at a premium. Installing central air was expensive, but in my climate it's not very common. Somewhere down the line, I can install a hot tub in the back yard, again very expensively. I won't be able to get my investment back when I sell it...but it's worth it for me personally as an owner.
A family friend made enough real cash money off of Bitcoins to afford a rather nice mortgage-free house and a ton of disposable money, but you're right, I highly doubt that it ever made it into multimillions. Never even thought about it that way.
if I'm correctly reading the figured I'm finding online, there's about 14 million bitcoins in existence, worth just under 4 billion dollars.
10% of all bitcoins were just stolen, and don't we see a story like this just about once a year?
Once in a rare while I regret not getting into Bitcoins during their huge growth phase. Then I'm reminded of how often this happens and I'm glad I kept my money.
In our big cities, it seems like it's too late to add more mass transit. Where the hell would you put it? There's already skyscrapers there. All I can figure is that we need stringent state or federal guidelines for new city planning above a certain size that mandates effective mass transit in the design. You can add it to new growth, you can't shove it into old cities.
It's pretty legit in this case. Not everybody who asks for funding is _only_ trying to enrich themselves. Hell, have you seen the state of our bridges lately? If I was in charge of them, I'd either want more funding, or to quit before I get blamed for them falling down.
See pg.116-125 of the report, it's not as freakishly alarmist as the summary indicates (and the pages are big font and full of pictures). It points out that Louis Armstrong airport in New Orleans is almost two feet below sea level, focuses on the increasing frequency of storms and their hazards to low-lying transportation hubs (costs of storms increasing over time and higher for major ports in high risk areas), and has graphs of historic sea levels with sources cited...there's a few hundred miles of track that will be underwater, which is an entirely reasonable statement given where they build some of them, but it doesn't really say that about airports at all.
Yeah, it does include that as part of the solution. Though at 300 pages it's still not all that in-depth.
"Congestion can also be managed through land use policies that help to reduce commuting distance. Mixed-use developments, where homes are near jobs, mean that commutes are shorter, and often make it possible for people to walk or bike to work. In general, development patterns that promote denser land use rather than sprawl help to reduce total commuter travel demand. Employers can be an important partner in managing congestion through travel demand, if they are able to facilitate flex-time schedules and teleworking. This reduces the need for commuters to be traveling during peak times. Employers may also provide benefits and amenities that encourage employees to use public transit, or to bike or walk to work."
There is actually a serious problem here because the gas tax--by far one of the largest of these--is supposed to be a usage fee, and MPG is increasing. Raising the gas tax isn't a great solution, because people with low MPG are often those who can afford it least, and because raising taxes are always a political firestorm (imagine how much industry would push back too). Electric cars are a whole new issue entirely--don't know how widespread they'll be long term though.
No, transportation infrastructure needs to be fed from somewhere else. One of the current solutions is to stick a GPS tracker in every car, which is admirable on the basis of fair payment for public road usage, but utterly catastrophic in every other way. I think we just need to pay for transport infrastructure from a general fund instead.
That's where you start getting into ugly policy discussions. Your teenager might be sexually active, in which case they really should have the vaccine, for their own good and for everyone else's. But they're sure as hell not going to opt into getting it where their parents can see it. Solution, force it on everyone and hope that the overall benefit outweighs the overall cost.
Vaccines are not 100% effective. If an average person is in sufficient contact to transmit to ten other people over the span of a disease, and have a 90% chance of passing something to them when they're unvaccinated, you've got an outbreak on your hands. If the transmission rate is 2% for vaccinated people, it might really suck to be in that 2%, but it won't cause an epidemic.
I'm going to bet he's referring to the HPV vaccine. Because obviously if you vaccinate your kids against an STD (even one that causes cancer!), you're just promoting sex. Never mind that the stats don't back that up at all.
Slashdot Mirror
You're close. You don't have a legal right to receive their service, but they do have a legal obligation to provide the service, because they are a common carrier. In exchange for legal considerations that the government grants them, they agree to certain terms of the government's...like "serve everyone".
But yeah, they also have some severe restrictions on what they're not allowed to carry, and they err way on the side of caution. If you told them "this is a block of lead, and I plan to melt it for bullets", they may well refuse, and by some legal interpretations they might *have* to.
Irradiation isn't 100% at inactivating C.Botulinum. Neither is heat pasteurization (to the level that your honey is still, well, honey). There's no guaranteed safe way of making honey edible for infants.
Guys, the honey-botulism thing is like eggs-salmonella. Not every egg has salmonella, and if you eat the clean ones raw, you'll be fine. Not all honey has C.Botulinum spores (which cause it), but if you give some that is contaminated to a young child, they will be badly affected because their gut bacteria hasn't had time to develop--it's a matter of growth, not resistance through exposure. You played the odds and won. Most kids that eat honey will be fine and most batches aren't contaminated. Some of them will get a bad batch and will be less fortunate.
Your assertion certainly isn't true for everyone. Yeah, some habits will change--people who _only_ download because it's a free and easy way to kill time will replace it with some other free and easy activity. That's a huge majority of pirates. But there's still a large number of people who pirate i.e. specific tv shows because they are interested in that particular show, and pirating is the easiest way to do it right now. Take away pirating and they still want their show--hell, some of them are already spending money because they decided that streaming from a storefront is more convenient than hunting torrents. Enough of those pirates have disposable income they're willing to spend that yes, it will make a difference in overall sales (if actually enforced).
used to work in the digital video industry...does that make me a corporate shill? There's still massive holes in the business model but it's not all bad, especially when streaming products are sold _as rentals_ so there's no "but I don't really own it" argument.
If you're controlling something, it should at least be a POST.
stodgy
[stoj-ee]
adjective, stodgier, stodgiest.
1. heavy, dull, or uninteresting; tediously commonplace; boring: a stodgy Victorian novel.
2. of a thick, semisolid consistency; heavy, as food.
3. stocky; thick-set.
4. old-fashioned; unduly formal and traditional: a stodgy old gentleman.
5. dull; graceless; inelegant: a stodgy business suit.
And watch my rent go up, or watch the landlord sell the place out from under me, or get foreclosed on, or decide to move in themselves? No thanks. I'm also paying a premium for stability. Yes it's dependent on keeping a stable job, but it really cuts down on the number of things that could force me to move. Peace of mind is invaluable.
There are some regions where property tax hikes can really screw you over in that situation, but I guess in that case your house would be worth enough that you can sell it and downsize.
I don't see my home as an investment. I'm buying the ability to knock down walls and move power outlets if I want to at a premium. Installing central air was expensive, but in my climate it's not very common. Somewhere down the line, I can install a hot tub in the back yard, again very expensively. I won't be able to get my investment back when I sell it...but it's worth it for me personally as an owner.
Even comments about C++ have memory leaks.
What? POST is the non-idempotent one. See the table in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc..., section 8.1.3
Not much really needs to be said.
Ah, good to know. I'd love to know how much BTC overall was actually deposited that vanished.
A family friend made enough real cash money off of Bitcoins to afford a rather nice mortgage-free house and a ton of disposable money, but you're right, I highly doubt that it ever made it into multimillions. Never even thought about it that way.
if I'm correctly reading the figured I'm finding online, there's about 14 million bitcoins in existence, worth just under 4 billion dollars.
10% of all bitcoins were just stolen, and don't we see a story like this just about once a year?
Once in a rare while I regret not getting into Bitcoins during their huge growth phase. Then I'm reminded of how often this happens and I'm glad I kept my money.
So you have a bunch of stores for sale in tech-sector-friendly locations, just when Amazon is starting to establish a physical presence... Hmm.
In our big cities, it seems like it's too late to add more mass transit. Where the hell would you put it? There's already skyscrapers there. All I can figure is that we need stringent state or federal guidelines for new city planning above a certain size that mandates effective mass transit in the design. You can add it to new growth, you can't shove it into old cities.
It's pretty legit in this case. Not everybody who asks for funding is _only_ trying to enrich themselves. Hell, have you seen the state of our bridges lately? If I was in charge of them, I'd either want more funding, or to quit before I get blamed for them falling down.
See pg.116-125 of the report, it's not as freakishly alarmist as the summary indicates (and the pages are big font and full of pictures). It points out that Louis Armstrong airport in New Orleans is almost two feet below sea level, focuses on the increasing frequency of storms and their hazards to low-lying transportation hubs (costs of storms increasing over time and higher for major ports in high risk areas), and has graphs of historic sea levels with sources cited...there's a few hundred miles of track that will be underwater, which is an entirely reasonable statement given where they build some of them, but it doesn't really say that about airports at all.
Yeah, it does include that as part of the solution. Though at 300 pages it's still not all that in-depth.
"Congestion can also be managed through land use policies that help to reduce commuting distance.
Mixed-use developments, where homes are near jobs, mean that commutes are shorter, and often
make it possible for people to walk or bike to work. In general, development patterns that promote
denser land use rather than sprawl help to reduce total commuter travel demand.
Employers can be an important partner in managing congestion through travel demand, if they are
able to facilitate flex-time schedules and teleworking. This reduces the need for commuters to be
traveling during peak times. Employers may also provide benefits and amenities that encourage
employees to use public transit, or to bike or walk to work."
There is actually a serious problem here because the gas tax--by far one of the largest of these--is supposed to be a usage fee, and MPG is increasing. Raising the gas tax isn't a great solution, because people with low MPG are often those who can afford it least, and because raising taxes are always a political firestorm (imagine how much industry would push back too). Electric cars are a whole new issue entirely--don't know how widespread they'll be long term though.
No, transportation infrastructure needs to be fed from somewhere else. One of the current solutions is to stick a GPS tracker in every car, which is admirable on the basis of fair payment for public road usage, but utterly catastrophic in every other way. I think we just need to pay for transport infrastructure from a general fund instead.
Those charges were raised in a different state. They weren't in this trial, they could be another trial, but at this point I doubt they'll bother.
That's where you start getting into ugly policy discussions. Your teenager might be sexually active, in which case they really should have the vaccine, for their own good and for everyone else's. But they're sure as hell not going to opt into getting it where their parents can see it. Solution, force it on everyone and hope that the overall benefit outweighs the overall cost.
Vaccines are not 100% effective. If an average person is in sufficient contact to transmit to ten other people over the span of a disease, and have a 90% chance of passing something to them when they're unvaccinated, you've got an outbreak on your hands. If the transmission rate is 2% for vaccinated people, it might really suck to be in that 2%, but it won't cause an epidemic.
I'm going to bet he's referring to the HPV vaccine. Because obviously if you vaccinate your kids against an STD (even one that causes cancer!), you're just promoting sex. Never mind that the stats don't back that up at all.