Well, if you changed the dress code such that men can wear more informal attire, you might not have that problem.
You might also be able to save on your AC bill.
I seriously doubt that there are many places that require men to wear a three piece suit nowadays.
I find it very odd that nobody wants to return to the moon.
I would think that companies such as McDonalds would want the "golden arches" on the moon; or Hilton would have a prestigious moonbase hotel; a giant "iMoon Apple" stating global or universal dominance; an NSA spystation; or Russia or China might want to put their flag up there next to the US flag...
Well let the dream team of Apple and McDonalds pay for their own fucking space programme then.
Why would you deliberately remove a pleasurable experience from your life, are you Catholic?
Eating is occasionally a pleasure, whereas alcohol is always.
Also, if you drink regularly, then you get less fussy about what food you can eat, and so a bowl of spicy lentils becomes almost as good a breakfast as a cold kebab.
i can buy a pound of hamburger, one tomato, one onion, head of lettuce, loaf of bread, for about 20 bucks, and cook four hamburgers, and feed four people and it will taste a heck of a lot better, thats about 5 bucks each a day, a lot better than a liquid diet too
But that's not nutritionally complete.
You need to add bacon and cheddar cheese.
And if you're from the US, don't forget a cup of sugar. Somehow.
"Each bottle is one fifth of a scientifically balanced daily meal plan, "
$2.42 per 400-calorie bottle so $12.08 a day,... cooking my self I can manage a (I hope) tastier alternative for less,...
Sorry, but I really don't get why this is interesting at all, for a short moment I thought: "Okay, may be for long term 'food' storage, then I read '"However, we counter that by the fact that the drink does not require refrigeration and also does not spoil until at least one year."
=> What is the gain in using this?
I assumed they were going for a secondary market of "preppers"/survival nutjobs.
It is better than a lottery because you are getting paid a good salary while you do it. I don't see the problem. You are getting a salary like any other job, and you have the chance of becoming rich on top of that, without any more investment. Doesn't seem like a lie to me.
Well, yes, but presumably the lies come when they use stock options as "jam tomorrow".
No, value can be created, something that Marxist theory conveniently ignores, just like you did above.
I thought in Marxist theory the workers' surplus labour created this added value, which capitalists took as profits?
It's not my understanding that Marx meant that there was some fixed amount of money which was just being moved from workers to capitalists. It was obvious from the Industrial Revolution that over all economic growth was happening.
It's so weird... I go to the bank, I get cash, I buy stuff. I use my credit card, I buy stuff. I send checks to pay bills. All with this worthless fiat currency that you rant about. Remind me, what's wrong here? The fact that what it can buy tomorrow may be different from what it can buy today? If you can point me to ANYTHING whose worth hasn't changed over time, I'd love to see it.
No, no, the thing is if we still had the gold standard, then you could withdraw all your money in gold (when the nuclear/zombie apocalypse happens) and it would have absolute value in gold when you went to buy some food and ammunition because it's gold.
See? By definition, gold is gold, whereas fiat currency is just paper. You will always be able to use gold to, um, make jewellery and high quality electrical connectors and stuff.
You don't get a right to get paid for your work. You have to market it and hope someone will pay for it.
You have a right to put a copy for sale at a certain price. Other people can either pay that price, or decline. If they decline, they do not suddenly get the right to a free copy.
Other people create stuff, too, and some people even distribute their work for free.
So what? Some people volunteer to do charity work, does that mean no one should get paid a salary?
How about forcing these descendents to donate their parents' assets to the public domain, just like copyrighted works?
We do.
We impose taxes on inheritances, because inheritance of substantial wealth is harmful to society. We impose taxes on property, because ownership of large, unproductive estates is harmful to society
We don't impose 100% inheritance taxes though. If my billionaire dad only leaves me three quarters of a billion instead of the full billion, does it really make any difference?
There are many descendents of people who owned real estate, farms, businesses, hotels and restaurants that are enjoying the fruits of their parents' hard work and investments. How about forcing these descendents to donate their parents' assets to the public domain, just like copyrighted works?
People here usually weasel out of this by banging on about "natural property rights" as though there were any such thing.
Oh, and of course, you can steal physical property, but copyright infringement isn't theft.
Can you explain how innovation is stifled if copyright duration is infinite? Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn't quit their company after making their first billion. A billion dollars is a lot for one person and his family. So why did they continue to work?
I think a lot of people on slashdot think of creative artists in the romantic "starving poet in a garret" way. They're not doing real work (like creating giant advertising companies such as Facebook and Google) so they don't really deserve to make any money from it.
Now, last thing I heard about "happy birthday" was that it makes 5 grand a DAY for Warner. Now, imagine you made "happy birthday". And got 5 grand a day from it. Where the fuck is your incentive to EVER create anything again? 5 grand a day? Fuck, I couldn't be assed to do anything but sit there and rake in the money for the rest of my life. Why bother work ever again if you already get more money than you can sensibly spend without doing anything?
Which is why all income over, let's say, two million a year should be taxed at 100% - no one needs that much money.
Or should hard working software entrepreneurs (for example) have a different standard applied to them?
I can bet with some certainty that autonomous cars won't go over the speed limit. I find it highly doubtful that a majority of the population that now enjoys driving 5-10mph over the speed limit will allow that. And I doubt if autonomous cars are going to include a 'drive over the speed limit' function.
At least in theory, autonomous cars will allow higher average speeds. First, their reaction time will be quicker than a human driver, so you will be able to bunch together closer. Second, with some sort of AI, you could get an over all flow control that avoided stop-start driving.
Although, frankly, this all seems unlikely in the near future.
Somehow people think autonomous cars will only leak pixie dust, and that people will happily throw away their drivers license and just take Johny Cabs everywhere.
Jesus fucking Christ, for the last time Uber's Autonomous Ride Sharing Experience is not a cab firm!
Seeing as I'm never going to own an autonomous car, or any car at all once we've switched over to autonomous tech, I'm not going to have any specific insurance premium to pay at all.
The future is that most travelling will be done via uber/zipcar type auto-taxi services. The companies and manufacturers will bare the direct cost of insurance and pass it on to consumers as part of the per-trip rate.
Most people who could survive without a car do so already, and tend to live in big cities with decent transport infrastructure (or London). That's fine, but it is not everybody.
If you need your car for two hours a day commuting, I don't see how it's going to be that cheap, but if it is, then great.
Slashdot Mirror
In the UK we're out getting sunburned on the three days a year it reaches that high.
Well, if you changed the dress code such that men can wear more informal attire, you might not have that problem. You might also be able to save on your AC bill.
I seriously doubt that there are many places that require men to wear a three piece suit nowadays.
72F is a balmy summer's day here in the UK. A comfortable night time sleeping temperature is anything above 32.
I find it very odd that nobody wants to return to the moon.
I would think that companies such as McDonalds would want the "golden arches" on the moon; or Hilton would have a prestigious moonbase hotel; a giant "iMoon Apple" stating global or universal dominance; an NSA spystation; or Russia or China might want to put their flag up there next to the US flag...
Well let the dream team of Apple and McDonalds pay for their own fucking space programme then.
I am a hell of a cook, I just do not really like food.
I like either cooking or eating but not both on the same occasion. Unless wine is involved.
Why would you deliberately remove a pleasurable experience from your life, are you Catholic?
Eating is occasionally a pleasure, whereas alcohol is always.
Also, if you drink regularly, then you get less fussy about what food you can eat, and so a bowl of spicy lentils becomes almost as good a breakfast as a cold kebab.
i can buy a pound of hamburger, one tomato, one onion, head of lettuce, loaf of bread, for about 20 bucks, and cook four hamburgers, and feed four people and it will taste a heck of a lot better, thats about 5 bucks each a day, a lot better than a liquid diet too
But that's not nutritionally complete.
You need to add bacon and cheddar cheese.
And if you're from the US, don't forget a cup of sugar. Somehow.
"Each bottle is one fifth of a scientifically balanced daily meal plan, " $2.42 per 400-calorie bottle so $12.08 a day,... cooking my self I can manage a (I hope) tastier alternative for less,...
Sorry, but I really don't get why this is interesting at all, for a short moment I thought: "Okay, may be for long term 'food' storage, then I read '"However, we counter that by the fact that the drink does not require refrigeration and also does not spoil until at least one year."
=> What is the gain in using this?
I assumed they were going for a secondary market of "preppers"/survival nutjobs.
Seems an odd choice of words. No one died. Should it have been "fateful"?
It is better than a lottery because you are getting paid a good salary while you do it. I don't see the problem. You are getting a salary like any other job, and you have the chance of becoming rich on top of that, without any more investment. Doesn't seem like a lie to me.
Well, yes, but presumably the lies come when they use stock options as "jam tomorrow".
No, value can be created, something that Marxist theory conveniently ignores, just like you did above.
I thought in Marxist theory the workers' surplus labour created this added value, which capitalists took as profits?
It's not my understanding that Marx meant that there was some fixed amount of money which was just being moved from workers to capitalists. It was obvious from the Industrial Revolution that over all economic growth was happening.
We went from cars to landing on the moon in less than 60 years.
It's now been almost another 60 years. What significant progress has been made
We invented the internet instead. You young people can't even begin to imagine what life was like before unlimited free porn.
Or, you know, you could just not use Windows 10.
Oh come on, how else is he going to play a game of solitaire?
You need a powerful and up to date Windows gaming machine to get one of those babies running sweetly.
It's so weird... I go to the bank, I get cash, I buy stuff. I use my credit card, I buy stuff. I send checks to pay bills. All with this worthless fiat currency that you rant about. Remind me, what's wrong here? The fact that what it can buy tomorrow may be different from what it can buy today? If you can point me to ANYTHING whose worth hasn't changed over time, I'd love to see it.
No, no, the thing is if we still had the gold standard, then you could withdraw all your money in gold (when the nuclear/zombie apocalypse happens) and it would have absolute value in gold when you went to buy some food and ammunition because it's gold.
See? By definition, gold is gold, whereas fiat currency is just paper. You will always be able to use gold to, um, make jewellery and high quality electrical connectors and stuff.
In Japan, getting arrested is pretty much like getting convicted.
Wow, you're not wrong. According to Wikipedia there is a 99% conviction rate.
You don't get a right to get paid for your work. You have to market it and hope someone will pay for it.
You have a right to put a copy for sale at a certain price. Other people can either pay that price, or decline. If they decline, they do not suddenly get the right to a free copy.
Other people create stuff, too, and some people even distribute their work for free.
So what? Some people volunteer to do charity work, does that mean no one should get paid a salary?
The natural state of a creative work is to be in the public domain.
The natural state of a piece of land is to belong to no one, so yes, it is only man-made laws that allow you to "own" a piece of real estate.
How about forcing these descendents to donate their parents' assets to the public domain, just like copyrighted works?
We do. We impose taxes on inheritances, because inheritance of substantial wealth is harmful to society. We impose taxes on property, because ownership of large, unproductive estates is harmful to society
We don't impose 100% inheritance taxes though. If my billionaire dad only leaves me three quarters of a billion instead of the full billion, does it really make any difference?
There are many descendents of people who owned real estate, farms, businesses, hotels and restaurants that are enjoying the fruits of their parents' hard work and investments. How about forcing these descendents to donate their parents' assets to the public domain, just like copyrighted works?
People here usually weasel out of this by banging on about "natural property rights" as though there were any such thing.
Oh, and of course, you can steal physical property, but copyright infringement isn't theft.
Can you explain how innovation is stifled if copyright duration is infinite? Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn't quit their company after making their first billion. A billion dollars is a lot for one person and his family. So why did they continue to work?
I think a lot of people on slashdot think of creative artists in the romantic "starving poet in a garret" way. They're not doing real work (like creating giant advertising companies such as Facebook and Google) so they don't really deserve to make any money from it.
This is what people mean by "rent seeking" - using the law to secure perpetual control of revenue for which you do nothing.
Until you abolish private ownership of land, you will always have literal rent seeking. It is part of the fabric of capitalism.
Now, last thing I heard about "happy birthday" was that it makes 5 grand a DAY for Warner. Now, imagine you made "happy birthday". And got 5 grand a day from it. Where the fuck is your incentive to EVER create anything again? 5 grand a day? Fuck, I couldn't be assed to do anything but sit there and rake in the money for the rest of my life. Why bother work ever again if you already get more money than you can sensibly spend without doing anything?
Which is why all income over, let's say, two million a year should be taxed at 100% - no one needs that much money.
Or should hard working software entrepreneurs (for example) have a different standard applied to them?
I can bet with some certainty that autonomous cars won't go over the speed limit. I find it highly doubtful that a majority of the population that now enjoys driving 5-10mph over the speed limit will allow that. And I doubt if autonomous cars are going to include a 'drive over the speed limit' function.
At least in theory, autonomous cars will allow higher average speeds. First, their reaction time will be quicker than a human driver, so you will be able to bunch together closer. Second, with some sort of AI, you could get an over all flow control that avoided stop-start driving.
Although, frankly, this all seems unlikely in the near future.
Somehow people think autonomous cars will only leak pixie dust, and that people will happily throw away their drivers license and just take Johny Cabs everywhere.
Jesus fucking Christ, for the last time Uber's Autonomous Ride Sharing Experience is not a cab firm!
Seeing as I'm never going to own an autonomous car, or any car at all once we've switched over to autonomous tech, I'm not going to have any specific insurance premium to pay at all.
The future is that most travelling will be done via uber/zipcar type auto-taxi services. The companies and manufacturers will bare the direct cost of insurance and pass it on to consumers as part of the per-trip rate.
Most people who could survive without a car do so already, and tend to live in big cities with decent transport infrastructure (or London). That's fine, but it is not everybody.
If you need your car for two hours a day commuting, I don't see how it's going to be that cheap, but if it is, then great.