The first "full cinematic experience" was Saturday afternoon, being crammed in next to a family with 4 children -3 early teens who were more or less interested, but kept getting up and going outside to check their phones (at least they took it outside, although ignoring it until after would have been more polite) and 1 crying infant who vomited repeatedly into a popcorn bucket throughout the film... Oh, and not to forget the couple behind me who kept sneezing down my neck. This reminded me why I have a projector at home.
The second time was Monday afternoon, with only about 20 other people in the imax dome. It was well worth the money.
A little bracket to mount it on the wall and you're done.
You can buy magnetic iPad mounts so that you can stick it to your fridge (e.g.FridgePad; I'm sure there are other options). You can also buy protective coverings or sleeves that still let you operate the touchscreen (e.g. Chef Sleeve), though in practice we've found that it's not really a problem (a touschscreen is pretty easy to wipe clean).
Double plus good post!
(quoting since you posted AC and most people will never see it...)
Some of the Fukushima reactors were only 25 years old. Since it was obviously an unsafe design, at what point should it have been shut down? At 15 years? At 20 years?
In my opinion? As soon as it was determined to be unsafe. The real questions should be: Determined by whom? and what is the definition of unsafe? I am not a nuclear engineer, I would want the definition to come from scientists, not politicians, or us plebeians.
The AP1000 design lasted 5 years before a safety flaw was found. If the lifetime for a reactor is supposed to be 60 years, it should be safe the ENTIRE 60 years. Not, 40 years safe.. 20 years "hopefully nothing will happen"
Is the lifespan designed as 60 years? or is it designed to be (as the previous poster said) 40-60 years?
Stop pretending these things are safe.
Statistically, they are. Again, I ask: How do you define safe vs unsafe?
They are complicated, with far too many parts to get right. Safety flaws have been found even in our very newest reactors.
That is a very Luddite statement. Do you feel the same about cars? about computers? about shoes?
"Complicated, with far too many parts to get right."...umm...OK. If that is your feeling, go with it. But it is not a logical position, and cannot be debated.
Slashdotters who overwhelmingly reject the usefulness of Facebook and consider it a useless marketing platform that only idiots would use will communicate their furious anger that somebody would dare to tell someone they can't use Facebook however they wish.
Welcome to the USA. Just because only an idiot would want to doesn't mean that those same idiots shouldn't be allowed to.
They've painted themselves into a corner. They experienced rapid "growth" by decreasing the bottom line. Now investors expect that, and so in order to keep up, they must continue aggressively decreasing the bottom line. If they stop, their stock price will drop as growth slows dramatically. It sucks for all involved, because eventually they'll run out of bottom line to cut, and then everybody's screwed except the investors (and executives) who sell just before that happens.
-- 77IM
To borrow a phrase "I don't think that word means what you think it does".
While growth may indeed cause the bottom line to decrease (ie hiring more people, opening a new office, or buying new equipment (growing the business) costs money and reduces (decreases) the amount of cash you have left (the bottom line)), generally investors want to see an INCREASE in the bottom line -they want more money, not less. If you are "aggressively decreasing the bottom line" you are doing it all wrong.
You can take a loan against the value of your stock. This is not income, and is not taxable.
In many cases, the interest paid on that loan is tax deductible. If structured correctly you may never even make a payment, the interest is simply added to the principle (it is still tax deductible). When the time comes you sign over the stock (not selling it, mind you!) to the lender, having exchanged the stock for real property and taking years of tax deductions on the supposed interest -still without paying any taxes.
Its shady, but not illegal. Loopholes exist for the rich to take advantage of.
You understand that Microsoft may need, and you hereby grant Microsoft the right, to use, modify, adapt, reproduce, distribute, and display content posted on the service solely to the extent necessary to provide the service.... In order to operate and provide the service, we collect certain information about you. As part of the service, we may also automatically upload information about your computer, your use of the service, and service performance.... We may access or disclose information about you, including the content of your communications.
Dropbox:
We may need your permission to do things you ask us to do with your stuff, for example, hosting your files, or sharing them at your direction. This includes product features visible to you, for example, image thumbnails or document previews. It also includes design choices we make to technically administer our Services, for example, how we redundantly backup data to keep it safe. You give us the permissions we need to do those things solely to provide the Services. This permission also extends to trusted third parties we work with to provide the Services, for example Amazon, which provides our storage space.
Google:
Some of our Services allow you to submit content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.
Things could be better worded all around... but that's what you get when lawyers get involved.
I don't like this. What if I want to surround myself with jerks?
That's a completely serious question. I actually prefer to talk to, and be surrounded by, people who are assholes. I think they're more fun, and I couldn't give less of a fuck about being insulted by some random dipshit on the internet. Or in person, really. Hell, I feel slightly uncomfortable when somebody doesn't take a shot at me that I know they could have. A community of "nice" people? Gag me with a spoon, that sounds like an incredibly dull place, and stressful too, where you have to worry every second about hurting somebody's feelings. Verbally knocking people around (and being knocked around) is half the fun, making this community sound like a great place if you like playing football with a bunch of grandmothers with osteoporosis.
Besides which, the true assholes out there are the ones that make the "community" turning on their target just another part of the making-them-feel-like-shit process. Can't wait to see what the trolls do with the new game (that game being the new pricing model, not DotA).
Enjoy paying the "jerk tax" then... or get tired of it and move on to something else. Either way, Valve wins.
I fail to understand how the first-sale doctrine does not apply just because the first sale was outside the US. I would understand completely if ICE was coming after him for not paying duties or tariffs, but what does copyright have to do with anything here? He didn't make copies. He simply resold books the publisher was already paid for.
The First Sale Doctrine doesn't apply to copyrighted good manufactured outside the U.S. The relevant case law is Pearson v. Liu, decided in the district court of the Southern District of New York. The case was appealed to the 2nd circuit court of appeals which affirmed the lower court's decision. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court which denied to hear the case, letting the decision of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to stand.
This ruling would only provide precedent in the jurisdiction that it was made in, and in the jurisdiction of the appellate court that affirmed it. That being New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. Since the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, no national precedent was set.
Your decision on how to set prices (look at the competition) still doesn't change the reality that the consumers pay the tax.
You have margins large enough that you can pay for the tax out of your "profits". Your business still relies on customers paying for goods, and you pay taxes proportional to the goods sold.
Would you disagree with the statement that your customers pay your costs of business? If they weren't willing to pay you more for services/goods than it costs you to provide them, you wouldn't be in business.
Taxes are a cost. Who pays for the costs of business? Ultimately, for any business that is profitable enough to continue operating, it's the consumer.
reductio ad absurdum
Sure!...and the customers pay the rent, the utilities, the salaries of all our employees, and of course the rent that the employees pay, and their utilities, and their groceries, and the rent of the grocery store where they buy groceries, and the salaries of the staff at the stores where our employees shop, and the rent that the employees of the stores where our employees shop pay, etc.
How far do you want to take that line of reasoning? Its a cycle. It's just turtles all the way down.
In fact, whomever pays, pays. Where they got their money doesn't change it. Money is just a representation of a transaction. We all got it from somewhere, and we all give it to someone else.
I'm sorry, but you still aren't paying the tax. You increased the price of the product to include the tax, and then make it transparent to the consumer. You are remitting the tax on behalf of the consumer in the same way as if you were to tack it on to the end.
WRONG.
Our prices are set by price matching other sellers in the various markets we sell in. There is no increase in price to hide the tax. Any additions would make our products non-competitive.
Of course it is possible that we are price matching competitors who have built in a buffer to cover their tax liabilities, but its not relevant either from our standpoint or from our customers.
Amazon has no presence in the state, so why should they have to pay sales tax? G.
The thing you, and many other people, don't realize is that no retailer, ANYWHERE, pays sales taxes on purchases you make....ever.....never ever.....never, never ever. The retailers merely COLLECT the tax from YOU on behalf of the the government. YOU are the one paying the taxes. And, no, this is not some weird "retailers pass the cost on" kind of thing. Sales taxes are paid by the consumer. That's why states have things called Use Tax, which is to cover things like mail-order and online. You are supposed to claim those purchases on your income tax forms at the state level, and then pay the appropriate tax. No one does it though, and that's why states are trying to find ways to get their lost revenue.
Not entirely true. You are correct that this is the way it is supposed to work, but in practice many small businesses find it less costly to pay the taxes than to collect them. I run one, and we do.
For our online sales, we do not collect taxes -they are too damn complicated, and the software packages available to calculate them are prone to errors that really piss customers off. It is simpler for our accountants to calculate the tax after the fact, on all sales that are applicable, and cut a check for the amount due. For our direct sales website, we do collect taxes, but for sales through affiliates, and channels (ebay, amazon, etc) we do not. The cost of getting it to work correctly is higher than the cost of paying the taxes ourselves, and it keeps our customers happier.
To put this post back on topic... I have received demand letters from the state of Colorado under this law - and after a quick reading, declined to pay them as it was obviously an extra-jurisdictional attempt to squeeze money out of us.
Slashdot Mirror
Subpoenas are issued by the clerk of the court at the discretion of the attorneys involved.
Warrants are issued by judges.
But they will just come back with a warrant and make it 'difficult' for twitter.
No. that will not make it difficult for Twitter. That will protect Twitter.
Complying with a warrant provides legal grounds for Twitter to act. Giving out information without one opens Twitter up to lawsuits.
I went twice.
The first "full cinematic experience" was Saturday afternoon, being crammed in next to a family with 4 children -3 early teens who were more or less interested, but kept getting up and going outside to check their phones (at least they took it outside, although ignoring it until after would have been more polite) and 1 crying infant who vomited repeatedly into a popcorn bucket throughout the film... Oh, and not to forget the couple behind me who kept sneezing down my neck. This reminded me why I have a projector at home.
The second time was Monday afternoon, with only about 20 other people in the imax dome. It was well worth the money.
Timing is everything.
I think it is the Left that is big on NASA cuts, as NASA is under mostly military spending.
Odd... If NASA were military, someone would just say it's to fight the TERRORISTS! and it would receive unlimited funding.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/ic/faqs.html
Is NASA a part of the Department of Defense?
NASA is not a part of the Department of Defense, nor of any other Cabinet-level department. NASA's administrator reports directly to the White House.
You can buy magnetic iPad mounts so that you can stick it to your fridge (e.g.FridgePad; I'm sure there are other options). You can also buy protective coverings or sleeves that still let you operate the touchscreen (e.g. Chef Sleeve), though in practice we've found that it's not really a problem (a touschscreen is pretty easy to wipe clean).
Double plus good post!
(quoting since you posted AC and most people will never see it...)
Some of the Fukushima reactors were only 25 years old. Since it was obviously an unsafe design, at what point should it have been shut down? At 15 years? At 20 years?
In my opinion? As soon as it was determined to be unsafe. The real questions should be: Determined by whom? and what is the definition of unsafe? I am not a nuclear engineer, I would want the definition to come from scientists, not politicians, or us plebeians.
The AP1000 design lasted 5 years before a safety flaw was found. If the lifetime for a reactor is supposed to be 60 years, it should be safe the ENTIRE 60 years. Not, 40 years safe.. 20 years "hopefully nothing will happen"
Is the lifespan designed as 60 years? or is it designed to be (as the previous poster said) 40-60 years?
Stop pretending these things are safe.
Statistically, they are. Again, I ask: How do you define safe vs unsafe?
They are complicated, with far too many parts to get right. Safety flaws have been found even in our very newest reactors.
That is a very Luddite statement. Do you feel the same about cars? about computers? about shoes?
"Complicated, with far too many parts to get right." ...umm...OK. If that is your feeling, go with it. But it is not a logical position, and cannot be debated.
Of course he doesn't have any evidence. The pro-nuclear crowd wants to pick and chose the best parts about nuclear... they want to pretend that
You just fell into the same trap as the GP you are bitching about -presuming that you know what someone elses intentions are.
each plant lasts for 40-60 years
They do.
--so that the cost of nuclear is competitive with coal,etc..
If a 40-60 year lifespan would make the costs competitive, then yes -they are.
and then when those 50 year old reactors are found to be unsafe, they say it's because they are out of date.
They are. 50 years is in the 40-60 year lifespan you just proposed -and as it is end-of-life, it is out-of-date as well.
Well... if they were rebuilt every decade with the latest safety improvements, they would not be cost competitive.
Obviously rebuilding something every 10 years that has a proposed lifespan of 40-60 years is not cost-effective.
So chose: unsafe reactors... or uncompetitive energy prices.
False Dilemma.
Ellison vs Page + Brin...
Round One, FIGHT!
Ok... here goes:
!1
Whew.. that was rough.
Slashdotters who overwhelmingly reject the usefulness of Facebook and consider it a useless marketing platform that only idiots would use will communicate their furious anger that somebody would dare to tell someone they can't use Facebook however they wish.
Welcome to the USA. Just because only an idiot would want to doesn't mean that those same idiots shouldn't be allowed to.
They've painted themselves into a corner. They experienced rapid "growth" by decreasing the bottom line. Now investors expect that, and so in order to keep up, they must continue aggressively decreasing the bottom line. If they stop, their stock price will drop as growth slows dramatically. It sucks for all involved, because eventually they'll run out of bottom line to cut, and then everybody's screwed except the investors (and executives) who sell just before that happens.
-- 77IM
To borrow a phrase "I don't think that word means what you think it does".
While growth may indeed cause the bottom line to decrease (ie hiring more people, opening a new office, or buying new equipment (growing the business) costs money and reduces (decreases) the amount of cash you have left (the bottom line)), generally investors want to see an INCREASE in the bottom line -they want more money, not less. If you are "aggressively decreasing the bottom line" you are doing it all wrong.
That's an interesting thought... Who owns SQL, though?
IBM
You can take a loan against the value of your stock. This is not income, and is not taxable.
In many cases, the interest paid on that loan is tax deductible. If structured correctly you may never even make a payment, the interest is simply added to the principle (it is still tax deductible). When the time comes you sign over the stock (not selling it, mind you!) to the lender, having exchanged the stock for real property and taking years of tax deductions on the supposed interest -still without paying any taxes.
Its shady, but not illegal. Loopholes exist for the rich to take advantage of.
Actually, this sounds like most managers I know.
Managers of the Street View program said they did not read the October 2006 document [written by the engineer that detailed his work].
Google is a marketing agency who makes their money off selling their users' data
Almost...
Google is an advertising company that makes money selling data about their users.
A subtle, but important, distinction.
Dropbox's and Skydrive's terms are more sane.
Really? Read on...
Skydrive:
You understand that Microsoft may need, and you hereby grant Microsoft the right, to use, modify, adapt, reproduce, distribute, and display content posted on the service solely to the extent necessary to provide the service. ... In order to operate and provide the service, we collect certain information about you. As part of the service, we may also automatically upload information about your computer, your use of the service, and service performance. ... We may access or disclose information about you, including the content of your communications.
Dropbox:
We may need your permission to do things you ask us to do with your stuff, for example, hosting your files, or sharing them at your direction. This includes product features visible to you, for example, image thumbnails or document previews. It also includes design choices we make to technically administer our Services, for example, how we redundantly backup data to keep it safe. You give us the permissions we need to do those things solely to provide the Services. This permission also extends to trusted third parties we work with to provide the Services, for example Amazon, which provides our storage space.
Google:
Some of our Services allow you to submit content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.
Things could be better worded all around... but that's what you get when lawyers get involved.
Try scrolling down a bit...
The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones.
I don't like this. What if I want to surround myself with jerks?
That's a completely serious question. I actually prefer to talk to, and be surrounded by, people who are assholes. I think they're more fun, and I couldn't give less of a fuck about being insulted by some random dipshit on the internet. Or in person, really. Hell, I feel slightly uncomfortable when somebody doesn't take a shot at me that I know they could have. A community of "nice" people? Gag me with a spoon, that sounds like an incredibly dull place, and stressful too, where you have to worry every second about hurting somebody's feelings. Verbally knocking people around (and being knocked around) is half the fun, making this community sound like a great place if you like playing football with a bunch of grandmothers with osteoporosis.
Besides which, the true assholes out there are the ones that make the "community" turning on their target just another part of the making-them-feel-like-shit process. Can't wait to see what the trolls do with the new game (that game being the new pricing model, not DotA).
Enjoy paying the "jerk tax" then... or get tired of it and move on to something else. Either way, Valve wins.
He waited for the check to clear the bank.
C-level positions are usually appointed by the board.
While the CEO is the leader among the C-levels, each C-level generally has their own mandate and goals as laid out by the board.
I fail to understand how the first-sale doctrine does not apply just because the first sale was outside the US. I would understand completely if ICE was coming after him for not paying duties or tariffs, but what does copyright have to do with anything here? He didn't make copies. He simply resold books the publisher was already paid for.
The First Sale Doctrine doesn't apply to copyrighted good manufactured outside the U.S. The relevant case law is Pearson v. Liu, decided in the district court of the Southern District of New York. The case was appealed to the 2nd circuit court of appeals which affirmed the lower court's decision. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court which denied to hear the case, letting the decision of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to stand.
This ruling would only provide precedent in the jurisdiction that it was made in, and in the jurisdiction of the appellate court that affirmed it. That being New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. Since the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, no national precedent was set.
Your decision on how to set prices (look at the competition) still doesn't change the reality that the consumers pay the tax.
You have margins large enough that you can pay for the tax out of your "profits". Your business still relies on customers paying for goods, and you pay taxes proportional to the goods sold.
Would you disagree with the statement that your customers pay your costs of business? If they weren't willing to pay you more for services/goods than it costs you to provide them, you wouldn't be in business.
Taxes are a cost. Who pays for the costs of business? Ultimately, for any business that is profitable enough to continue operating, it's the consumer.
reductio ad absurdum
Sure! ...and the customers pay the rent, the utilities, the salaries of all our employees, and of course the rent that the employees pay, and their utilities, and their groceries, and the rent of the grocery store where they buy groceries, and the salaries of the staff at the stores where our employees shop, and the rent that the employees of the stores where our employees shop pay, etc.
How far do you want to take that line of reasoning? Its a cycle. It's just turtles all the way down.
In fact, whomever pays, pays. Where they got their money doesn't change it. Money is just a representation of a transaction. We all got it from somewhere, and we all give it to someone else.
I'm sorry, but you still aren't paying the tax. You increased the price of the product to include the tax, and then make it transparent to the consumer. You are remitting the tax on behalf of the consumer in the same way as if you were to tack it on to the end.
WRONG.
Our prices are set by price matching other sellers in the various markets we sell in. There is no increase in price to hide the tax. Any additions would make our products non-competitive.
Of course it is possible that we are price matching competitors who have built in a buffer to cover their tax liabilities, but its not relevant either from our standpoint or from our customers.
Amazon has no presence in the state, so why should they have to pay sales tax? G.
The thing you, and many other people, don't realize is that no retailer, ANYWHERE, pays sales taxes on purchases you make....ever.....never ever.....never, never ever. The retailers merely COLLECT the tax from YOU on behalf of the the government. YOU are the one paying the taxes. And, no, this is not some weird "retailers pass the cost on" kind of thing. Sales taxes are paid by the consumer. That's why states have things called Use Tax, which is to cover things like mail-order and online. You are supposed to claim those purchases on your income tax forms at the state level, and then pay the appropriate tax. No one does it though, and that's why states are trying to find ways to get their lost revenue.
Not entirely true. You are correct that this is the way it is supposed to work, but in practice many small businesses find it less costly to pay the taxes than to collect them. I run one, and we do.
For our online sales, we do not collect taxes -they are too damn complicated, and the software packages available to calculate them are prone to errors that really piss customers off. It is simpler for our accountants to calculate the tax after the fact, on all sales that are applicable, and cut a check for the amount due. For our direct sales website, we do collect taxes, but for sales through affiliates, and channels (ebay, amazon, etc) we do not. The cost of getting it to work correctly is higher than the cost of paying the taxes ourselves, and it keeps our customers happier.
To put this post back on topic... I have received demand letters from the state of Colorado under this law - and after a quick reading, declined to pay them as it was obviously an extra-jurisdictional attempt to squeeze money out of us.
Sadly, U.S. Border Patrol checkpoints and crossing the border are not necessarily related...