Now if they can come up with a modern version of a Chevy panel van. With porthole windows, cheesy mural, orange shag carpeting and a bumper sticker, "If this van's rocking, don't come knocking" they will have addressed my demographic.
In related news, Beijing announces the creation of a pollution enforcement squad. You'll see them driving up and down the streets in big vans, looking for violators.
There are certain restrictions on the ownership structures of law firms. In the past (things may have changed), limited liability was not allowed. Hence, law firms were structured as partnerships.
One interesting structure for monetizing risk is Lloyd's of London. Where investors could sign on to receive the proceeds of insurance premiums. But there was no limit on the down side should someone make an insurance claim. So the investors stood to lose quite a lot. Lawsuits have a different financial structure than insurance. The latter having very large losses (claims) and lesser upsides (premiums). Lawsuits have very large upsides (huge awards for the plaintiffs) and lower, limited downsides (court costs).
The problem (which I don't see being solved anytime soon) is that the calculation of damages by plaintiffs (patent trolls) tends to be outlandish, with little basis in reality. An organization that builds nothing didn't lose any sales when someone else went to market with that technology. Lost sales or licensing fees are purely hypothetical if all someone does is sit on a patent for years.
And since contingency fees are one tool that poor and middle class people use to obtain legal assistance, this decision will harm this group to a greater degree.
To continue with your example: I am quite wealthy, but live in an upper middle class neighborhood (not Warren Buffet, but same idea). So if I decide to file a frivolous lawsuit against a neighbor, I just pay my attorney for her time. So she has no risk. And if I lose, so what? I could wipe out my neighborhood with lawsuits even if my track record in court was 50%. They, on the other hand aren't in line to receive a big settlement. They are defendants, whose best outcome will be a 50% chance of being reimbursed for their expenses. Smart lawyers will avoid such clients, leaving them at a disadvantage in court.
Easy if you have the spare time and don't have to haul food to feed a family. And since each urban grocer is more likely going to use the same strategy to serve their locked in market, nobody nearby is going to compete for a small additional number of customers. So, while I can drive 2 miles to the next store, urban dwellers might have to leave town to find decent produce. And if you live in some no-cars city like New York or Seattle, no business has to worry about the small market share that can shop elsewhere. Who do you think is behind the urban village concept anyway?
hardly suitable for the booming fields of web and mobile app development.
Perhaps this is so. But embedded apps are largely written in C.
Some years ago, I ran across a statistic. I'm not sure if its still accurate but: Take all the processors used in personal computing devices (PCs, tablets, phones) and web servers as a subset of all processors, micro-controllers, etc. and calculated that as a percentage. Rounded to the nearest whole percentage point, that number would be zero.
Rich people can comparison shop. If your local market doesn't carry a variety of fresh fruits and veggies, you just jump in the car and drive a couple of miles to one that does. So every grocery store has to compete on this level or go broke.
If you live in a poor neighborhood or a big city without access to flexible transportation, you have to use the corner bodega. Distance is a major factor in shopping decisions. These urban village markets know this and stock more high profit processed foods. And price isn't even that big a factor. I've stopped by some of the little hipster stores in the city. Their selection is shit and their prices on comparable items in suburban stores is often higher.
It had better not be. Because the vehicular production of NOx falls down in the noise level compared to natural sources. Besides, it's just part of the nitrogen cycle and a kind of plant food.
I was explicitly trying to avoid buzz words like labor and capital so as to not trigger the Marxist/Leninist sympathizers. The ones who think that I have to voluntarily participate in some collective vision of the economy.
We managed just fine for some 100-thousand years accessing resources WITHOUT the land they were on being attached by a piece of paper to one particular individual.
Really? Take a look at the GDP of countries without defensible land title systems. Nobody is going to invest in a crop when the tribe next door can just wander in and take it.
the ability to work together for collective endeavors, like government
Here we go again with that socialism crap. People can't opt out of a collective endeavor once the government gets involved. 'We' should be able to structure our activities as 'we' wish. Or just don't join that particular venture. It's as simple as that.
Things that require a contribution of resources from the population as a whole should be held to an absolute minimum. Things like police and fire departments, where it makes sense to stop a fire or crime before it spreads throughout the community. Otherwise, resources should be allocated to the greatest degree possible according to the interests of the people who contribute them.
This is because there is usually a financial incentive to have you workers be contractors.
Financial incentive for Uber, yes. Also there's a financial incentive for the drivers to be contractors. But governments hate it, particularly in the USA. Because taxes and gov't interference in businesses all tend to be keyed to 'protecting the employee'. Screw the protection. I want the tax loopholes and freedom from the nanny state for myself.
... as an asset. Just like stocks and bonds. Where the talking heads on the nightly business news try to spin stories about every random lurch in the DJIA, Slashdot is serving that function for Bitcoin.
Slashdot Mirror
Now if they can come up with a modern version of a Chevy panel van. With porthole windows, cheesy mural, orange shag carpeting and a bumper sticker, "If this van's rocking, don't come knocking" they will have addressed my demographic.
You can't trademark a number in the US.
Better get this news to Boeing.
They haven't put Feinstein in a nursing home yet. So I'm going to concur.
My wife asked me why I carried my gun around the house.
"Decepticons", I replied.
She laughed. I laughed. The toaster laughed. I shot the toaster.
Actually, driving anything that makes the smog worse.
In related news, Beijing announces the creation of a pollution enforcement squad. You'll see them driving up and down the streets in big vans, looking for violators.
LLC
There are certain restrictions on the ownership structures of law firms. In the past (things may have changed), limited liability was not allowed. Hence, law firms were structured as partnerships.
One interesting structure for monetizing risk is Lloyd's of London. Where investors could sign on to receive the proceeds of insurance premiums. But there was no limit on the down side should someone make an insurance claim. So the investors stood to lose quite a lot. Lawsuits have a different financial structure than insurance. The latter having very large losses (claims) and lesser upsides (premiums). Lawsuits have very large upsides (huge awards for the plaintiffs) and lower, limited downsides (court costs).
The problem (which I don't see being solved anytime soon) is that the calculation of damages by plaintiffs (patent trolls) tends to be outlandish, with little basis in reality. An organization that builds nothing didn't lose any sales when someone else went to market with that technology. Lost sales or licensing fees are purely hypothetical if all someone does is sit on a patent for years.
This.
And since contingency fees are one tool that poor and middle class people use to obtain legal assistance, this decision will harm this group to a greater degree.
To continue with your example: I am quite wealthy, but live in an upper middle class neighborhood (not Warren Buffet, but same idea). So if I decide to file a frivolous lawsuit against a neighbor, I just pay my attorney for her time. So she has no risk. And if I lose, so what? I could wipe out my neighborhood with lawsuits even if my track record in court was 50%. They, on the other hand aren't in line to receive a big settlement. They are defendants, whose best outcome will be a 50% chance of being reimbursed for their expenses. Smart lawyers will avoid such clients, leaving them at a disadvantage in court.
walking two miles each way
Easy if you have the spare time and don't have to haul food to feed a family. And since each urban grocer is more likely going to use the same strategy to serve their locked in market, nobody nearby is going to compete for a small additional number of customers. So, while I can drive 2 miles to the next store, urban dwellers might have to leave town to find decent produce. And if you live in some no-cars city like New York or Seattle, no business has to worry about the small market share that can shop elsewhere. Who do you think is behind the urban village concept anyway?
hardly suitable for the booming fields of web and mobile app development.
Perhaps this is so. But embedded apps are largely written in C.
Some years ago, I ran across a statistic. I'm not sure if its still accurate but: Take all the processors used in personal computing devices (PCs, tablets, phones) and web servers as a subset of all processors, micro-controllers, etc. and calculated that as a percentage. Rounded to the nearest whole percentage point, that number would be zero.
it will be another ten years before Skye gets olive trees and bougainvillea.
It can't happen soon enough. Personally, I'm waiting for the reappearance of some good wine making grapes in Vinland.
Rich people can comparison shop. If your local market doesn't carry a variety of fresh fruits and veggies, you just jump in the car and drive a couple of miles to one that does. So every grocery store has to compete on this level or go broke.
If you live in a poor neighborhood or a big city without access to flexible transportation, you have to use the corner bodega. Distance is a major factor in shopping decisions. These urban village markets know this and stock more high profit processed foods. And price isn't even that big a factor. I've stopped by some of the little hipster stores in the city. Their selection is shit and their prices on comparable items in suburban stores is often higher.
Use an automatic center punch. I hesitated at posting this for about a second. But all car thieves know this trick already.
That truck produces very low NOx emissions.
So NO2 isn't toxic
It had better not be. Because the vehicular production of NOx falls down in the noise level compared to natural sources. Besides, it's just part of the nitrogen cycle and a kind of plant food.
I was explicitly trying to avoid buzz words like labor and capital so as to not trigger the Marxist/Leninist sympathizers. The ones who think that I have to voluntarily participate in some collective vision of the economy.
We managed just fine for some 100-thousand years accessing resources WITHOUT the land they were on being attached by a piece of paper to one particular individual.
Really? Take a look at the GDP of countries without defensible land title systems. Nobody is going to invest in a crop when the tribe next door can just wander in and take it.
the ability to work together for collective endeavors, like government
Here we go again with that socialism crap. People can't opt out of a collective endeavor once the government gets involved. 'We' should be able to structure our activities as 'we' wish. Or just don't join that particular venture. It's as simple as that.
Things that require a contribution of resources from the population as a whole should be held to an absolute minimum. Things like police and fire departments, where it makes sense to stop a fire or crime before it spreads throughout the community. Otherwise, resources should be allocated to the greatest degree possible according to the interests of the people who contribute them.
Is that you, Otto?
This is because there is usually a financial incentive to have you workers be contractors.
Financial incentive for Uber, yes. Also there's a financial incentive for the drivers to be contractors. But governments hate it, particularly in the USA. Because taxes and gov't interference in businesses all tend to be keyed to 'protecting the employee'. Screw the protection. I want the tax loopholes and freedom from the nanny state for myself.
Is there some other, totally consensual and benign way that they could know this?
Kinsey conducted another survey.
DVD is a dying format,
I guess I'll have to switch to HD DVD.
It was nice to see the calendar turn over to 2017
You were getting tired of Miss December too?