There is a serious benefit of Beta you are all ignoring. Productivity around the world is increasing due to people preferring to work instead of reading Slashdot.
You've got that right. If I had to use the Win 8 interface, I would downgrade in a heartbeat. Well, 40 minutes or whatever the time takes. But a simple utility was all it took to give me the UI I want. Thus, best of both worlds.
It's not a long list and most are pretty marginal. But performance and security are better. Task manager gives useful information. Not enough that I would bother upgrading to Win8. But Classic Shell makes it enough like Windows 7, I'm quite happy not downgrading on a new laptop that has a downgrade rights.
So if you're looking for a compelling valid list, yeah, there ain't one.
I have no love for Win 8's UI. But Classic Shell to the rescue. My current system has the best of both worlds. Win 7 UI, Win 8 OS under the hood (which does have some nice improvements).
No, they ruled the patent owner always has the burden of proof. It so happens, that's the defendant. It is the "always" that was the important part of the ruling.
Until fairly recently, if you licensed a patent, you gave up the right to contest it. That changed, but there was still some grey.
In this case, the Plaintiff had licensed for one product but wanted a judgement concerning a newer product. The Defendant asserted the burden of proof was on the Plaintiff since they had licensed it and now wanted to contest it. The Supreme Court disagreed: patent owner always has the burden of proof.
I remember reading stories like that as a kid. Never thought I'd see it. Then we moved to a neighborhood where it was common. Yes, common.
When there were dry thunderstorms, ball lightening would form above a tree down the street. One or two at a time, but dozens during a storm. About 30 to 60 cm in dia, they would drift down from the tree, changing colors until they popped.
My brother and I would watch it from behind a screen door during at least 3 different storms I can think of. Wild to think it was common enough to recognize the sound and say "The ball lightning is back, let's go watch!"
The great irony was we were living in family housing at a large research university. The never knew what they had happening on their own campus. I figured they wouldn't believe some kid.
For good or bad, US farmers are incredibly efficient. EU numbers show that EU farmers outnumber US farmers 6 to 1. Meanwhile, the EU is a net importer of food and the US exports a third of production.
Thanks for posting the link. I took a look at the table you are referring to. There isn't a simple pattern. Farmers intrinsically have better food security and few could be said to be in poverty. Economically, they are small business owners and have to be reasonably successful or they don't stay farmers for very long. But they only make up less than 2% of the US population. Even in a rural state such as Wyoming, most people are not farmers or ranchers.
You'll see that states that have lower median income (more precisely, more people in the first quartile) have more people on SNAP. The cause for all the variation is due to a thousand different reasons.
One of the reasons so many people qualify for SNAP is that you don't have to be extremely poor to qualify. A family of 4 can earn $30,000 a year and qualify. Being poor in the US is not like being poor in 90% of the world.
I've had to make ends meet here on that kind of income, and it's not easy. My wife and kids qualified for a state food program for a while (bread, beans, milk). But even though they got the food, and it helped our budget, we would have survived without. Others might not.
Yes, we have federal, state, local, community, and even church programs that help people. These are independent of welfare benefits. Much of the fight you are seeing is due to there being so many programs. Many disagreements as to efficiency and efficacy. What is the right delivery mechanism, how much funding for each, who is in control, etc, etc.
Like many American things, it's a mess, we enjoy arguing about it, and things manage to work.
Finally, a rational response. But I'm not sure about the tax implications for a group of nuns. Presumably it's a tax exempt organization. And "reasonable" is a subjective word. Which is why this is ending up in court.
Which may not be an argument you want to make. It's a pretty finite list of what employers cannot fire someone for. Behavior is generally not one of them. You can be legally fired for belonging to the wrong political party. Contraception might be legal grounds for termination. So can you work for someone who can fire you for buying contraception, but force them to pay for it?
Just so we are clear, you do understand that the objection isn't to taxes that are used to pay for subsidies under ACA, right? The contributions to the Treasury aren't at issue. They don't have to make the same contribution either way. Some companies are choosing to not offer any health coverage. A tiny fraction of those that want to also have moral qualms.
Right or wrong, I'd be disappointed if they didn't stand up for what they believe. e.g. I may not agree, but will defend their right to say it.
No difference, if you believe the government and insurance companies are the same. Paying taxes is a universal requirement. Providing insurance to your employees is not a universal requirement.
It's recognized that it is possible to join the army and not carry a weapon. For instance, medics. An exemption for pacifists. So exemptions do have precedent, including volunteer situations.
You can argue government and insurance companies are the same, in which case there is precedent for exemptions. Or you can argue they are different, in which case there are also examples of exemptions. Your choice. I don't really care.
Slight difference. Taxes are spent by the government. Pacifists are not being asked to directly pay soldiers. Insurance payments are made by the employer, not through the government.
In a striking parallel, pacifists are exempted from certain provision of serving in the military that would conflict with their moral belief.
That's what they are arguing: Those that think contraception is wrong shouldn't have to buy it. As employers, they are being told to pay for something they believe is morally wrong. They believe that by being complicit, they risk hell. So they wish to simply not do it. They want to decide what is best for themselves. They don't like that others are dictating to them what they may or may not do.
Sometimes the rights or responsibilities of two people or two groups conflict and has to be hashed out in court.
I'm hoping they become a third party software and support house for phone manufacturers. Obviously the manufactures don't want to be bothered keeping software updated, but might be willing to offload the work to CM. CM then gets a lump sum to provide OS and updates for x number of years and the manufacturers get to look like heroes to their customers.
Alternately, they become the equivalent to after-market car parts source. For a low cost, you get the replacement parts/software you need soup up your stock car/hardware.
Historically, that has a flaw as well. Take a look at public funding of health research vs incidence or prevalence. Completely skewed towards groups that can apply the most pressure on congress (orders of magnitude out of whack). Funding becomes politically motivated rather than "ensuring the well being of the public."
Slashdot Mirror
There is a serious benefit of Beta you are all ignoring. Productivity around the world is increasing due to people preferring to work instead of reading Slashdot.
You've got that right. If I had to use the Win 8 interface, I would downgrade in a heartbeat. Well, 40 minutes or whatever the time takes. But a simple utility was all it took to give me the UI I want. Thus, best of both worlds.
It's not a long list and most are pretty marginal. But performance and security are better. Task manager gives useful information. Not enough that I would bother upgrading to Win8. But Classic Shell makes it enough like Windows 7, I'm quite happy not downgrading on a new laptop that has a downgrade rights.
So if you're looking for a compelling valid list, yeah, there ain't one.
http://www.energymanagertoday....
I have no love for Win 8's UI. But Classic Shell to the rescue. My current system has the best of both worlds. Win 7 UI, Win 8 OS under the hood (which does have some nice improvements).
No, they ruled the patent owner always has the burden of proof. It so happens, that's the defendant. It is the "always" that was the important part of the ruling.
Until fairly recently, if you licensed a patent, you gave up the right to contest it. That changed, but there was still some grey.
In this case, the Plaintiff had licensed for one product but wanted a judgement concerning a newer product. The Defendant asserted the burden of proof was on the Plaintiff since they had licensed it and now wanted to contest it. The Supreme Court disagreed: patent owner always has the burden of proof.
I remember reading stories like that as a kid. Never thought I'd see it. Then we moved to a neighborhood where it was common. Yes, common.
When there were dry thunderstorms, ball lightening would form above a tree down the street. One or two at a time, but dozens during a storm. About 30 to 60 cm in dia, they would drift down from the tree, changing colors until they popped.
My brother and I would watch it from behind a screen door during at least 3 different storms I can think of. Wild to think it was common enough to recognize the sound and say "The ball lightning is back, let's go watch!"
The great irony was we were living in family housing at a large research university. The never knew what they had happening on their own campus. I figured they wouldn't believe some kid.
"Make the spoon the reference, then move the spoon."
"I think I am outside it, therefore I am outside it."
"A near miss"
I was curious about that. Here's a bit of quick googling: http://www.fb.org/index.php/index.php?action=newsroom.fastfacts
For good or bad, US farmers are incredibly efficient. EU numbers show that EU farmers outnumber US farmers 6 to 1. Meanwhile, the EU is a net importer of food and the US exports a third of production.
Thanks for posting the link. I took a look at the table you are referring to. There isn't a simple pattern. Farmers intrinsically have better food security and few could be said to be in poverty. Economically, they are small business owners and have to be reasonably successful or they don't stay farmers for very long. But they only make up less than 2% of the US population. Even in a rural state such as Wyoming, most people are not farmers or ranchers.
Rather, compare it to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_quintiles and this: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/income-rules-income-limits
You'll see that states that have lower median income (more precisely, more people in the first quartile) have more people on SNAP. The cause for all the variation is due to a thousand different reasons.
One of the reasons so many people qualify for SNAP is that you don't have to be extremely poor to qualify. A family of 4 can earn $30,000 a year and qualify. Being poor in the US is not like being poor in 90% of the world.
I've had to make ends meet here on that kind of income, and it's not easy. My wife and kids qualified for a state food program for a while (bread, beans, milk). But even though they got the food, and it helped our budget, we would have survived without. Others might not.
Yes, we have federal, state, local, community, and even church programs that help people. These are independent of welfare benefits. Much of the fight you are seeing is due to there being so many programs. Many disagreements as to efficiency and efficacy. What is the right delivery mechanism, how much funding for each, who is in control, etc, etc.
Like many American things, it's a mess, we enjoy arguing about it, and things manage to work.
Better strategy: Start to buy a Ford. Then ask them to disable the tracking as a condition of sale. When they say no (can't/won't), leave.
Is the Corvette Stingray close enough?
Or in the case of Hawaii, papaya.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papaya_ringspot_virus
By that logic, there is a universal requirement if you just define who it actually applies to.
Finally, a rational response. But I'm not sure about the tax implications for a group of nuns. Presumably it's a tax exempt organization. And "reasonable" is a subjective word. Which is why this is ending up in court.
Which may not be an argument you want to make. It's a pretty finite list of what employers cannot fire someone for. Behavior is generally not one of them. You can be legally fired for belonging to the wrong political party. Contraception might be legal grounds for termination. So can you work for someone who can fire you for buying contraception, but force them to pay for it?
Just so we are clear, you do understand that the objection isn't to taxes that are used to pay for subsidies under ACA, right? The contributions to the Treasury aren't at issue. They don't have to make the same contribution either way. Some companies are choosing to not offer any health coverage. A tiny fraction of those that want to also have moral qualms.
Right or wrong, I'd be disappointed if they didn't stand up for what they believe. e.g. I may not agree, but will defend their right to say it.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm not saying it. I am saying that that appears to be their argument.
Please argue with the right people.
No difference, if you believe the government and insurance companies are the same. Paying taxes is a universal requirement. Providing insurance to your employees is not a universal requirement.
It's recognized that it is possible to join the army and not carry a weapon. For instance, medics. An exemption for pacifists. So exemptions do have precedent, including volunteer situations.
You can argue government and insurance companies are the same, in which case there is precedent for exemptions. Or you can argue they are different, in which case there are also examples of exemptions. Your choice. I don't really care.
Slight difference. Taxes are spent by the government. Pacifists are not being asked to directly pay soldiers. Insurance payments are made by the employer, not through the government.
In a striking parallel, pacifists are exempted from certain provision of serving in the military that would conflict with their moral belief.
That's what they are arguing: Those that think contraception is wrong shouldn't have to buy it. As employers, they are being told to pay for something they believe is morally wrong. They believe that by being complicit, they risk hell. So they wish to simply not do it. They want to decide what is best for themselves. They don't like that others are dictating to them what they may or may not do.
Sometimes the rights or responsibilities of two people or two groups conflict and has to be hashed out in court.
"Lead additive manufacturing engineers." What a great title for gun makers.
Yes, I know they don't mean Pb. But it would be so much funnier if they did.
I'm hoping they become a third party software and support house for phone manufacturers. Obviously the manufactures don't want to be bothered keeping software updated, but might be willing to offload the work to CM. CM then gets a lump sum to provide OS and updates for x number of years and the manufacturers get to look like heroes to their customers.
Alternately, they become the equivalent to after-market car parts source. For a low cost, you get the replacement parts/software you need soup up your stock car/hardware.
hoping. I said hoping.
You'll laugh, but I'm doing CAD work in the US ... outsourced from China.
Historically, that has a flaw as well. Take a look at public funding of health research vs incidence or prevalence. Completely skewed towards groups that can apply the most pressure on congress (orders of magnitude out of whack). Funding becomes politically motivated rather than "ensuring the well being of the public."