Without subsidy the USPS will need to scale down massively, they can't compete in a free market environment.
The USPS is not subsidized by the US government/taxpayers. Their rates are set by the government, but they operate entirely on the funds that they generate directly.
Even then, they'll always run losses because the international treaties rapes every western postal service. If Trump wants to do something useful he should unilaterally get the US out of the treaty of Bern.
The USPS is profitable. The reported shortfall in their budget was due to congress passing a new requirement (which only applied to the USPS) that they pre-fund their retirement account fully within five years. Meaning that the full retirement package for every postal service employee is fully paid. If every employee retired now (even if they were just hired and thus are not eligible for retirement benefits...) the full amount of their retirement pension is covered.
It is not a bad thing, but it was done in such a way as to make the USPS look bad.
You've gotta be pretty dumb to trust an icon, or even to not be skeptical of an LED.
Totally. You should only trust things that you have assembled from sub-atomic particles using the power of your own mind. Anything less and you are trusting that the evil ones have not subverted the purity of your essence!/sarc
You complain to the OTA and let them deal with the hotel.
To the hotel you are just some dude complaining over a few dollars. The OTA is a contract worth millions.
If the OTA does not resolve the issue for you, then you contact your credit card company and dispute the charge.
Either you get what you were promised, or they don't get paid. That is the "value add" of the middlemen (the OTA and the CC company) -they have more leverage than you do when it comes to resolving problems.
As a passenger, I don't give a shit who owns the car. There is one organization that sets all of the rules and all of the prices for all taxis. That's a monopoly. Uber drivers own their own cars too, but Uber is still a single organization. Just because a Taxi driver own's one medallion and one car doesn't make him any more independent than an Uber driver. That fact is precisely what this court case was about.
That "one organization" you are referring to is the local government. The next city over has another, completely separate "one organization" that sets the rules for all taxi companies that operate within it's jurisdiction.
I don't think you understand what monopoly means. Government regulation of an industry does not make it a monopoly.
So what happens when a genuine seller gets payment in advance, ships the goods, and then the buyer rolls back the transaction?
What if everybody starts rolling back transactions willy-nilly?
Then the banks start charging 3% transaction fees so they can include "free fraud protection" like the credit card companies do. I am sure they would be happy to do so...
"Free speech" means that the government can't punish you for what you say.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech.
Freedom of speech means that the government may not prevent you from speaking (sharing your opinions), especially with regards to the government (aka political speech).
I guess they didn't make the important part obvious enough: you are going to be paying for that increased price.
And it's at least partly due to an insistence we increase border security to keep out undocumented workers from stealing jobs. Jobs, it turns out, that no one wants but need to be done in order for us all to not starve.
There is no shortage of people who want these jobs. Come to the central valley of California and see for yourself.
We have tried repeatedly for almost three years to get a meeting with Karen and Bradley in order to discuss this and other claims we have concerning their and the Conservancy’s activities.
This is a red herring. Requesting a meeting is not how you go about asserting a trademark.
Typically a letter is sent stating your position. The opposing party can agree, disagree, request to discuss terms, or ignore you... Where you go from there varies, but you always start by giving notice in writing that there is an issue to be resolved.
Twenty-two countries, mostly those with smaller military budgets and lesser technical knowhow, have called for an outright ban, arguing that automated weapons are by definition illegal as every individual decision to launch a strike must be made by a human.
A bunch of nobodies are not going to convince the superpowers to agree. The EU, US, UK, China, Russia will not accept being told that they cannot develop the military technologies that they decide they need. Nuclear, chemical, biological... still got em.
Or we could simply cut the military to a reasonable size and tax upper income earners at rates in line with what the rest of the world do. Then we'd be asking how we are going to spend oir massive surplus.
No. We would be asking what the hell to do with all of these unemployed former military service people.
While commonly held to be good practices, many of the actions listed are actionable -some are even criminal. Be very sure you know where you stand legally before attempting to detain someone against their will, or to deprive them of their personal property. Most likely you will be fine, but all it takes is one person asserting their rights, and someone overzealously acting on the company's behalf, and you have a serious problem.
Slashdot Mirror
The UK could declare a diplomat Persona non grata. That person keeps all their diplomatic protection on the way out of the UK.
This presupposes that diplomatic immunity has been extended to the person in the first place.
In Assange's case, this has not been done. The request to grant him such status was denied.
You cannot keep what you never had.
No.
po-TAY-toe
po-TAH-toe
Without subsidy the USPS will need to scale down massively, they can't compete in a free market environment.
The USPS is not subsidized by the US government/taxpayers. Their rates are set by the government, but they operate entirely on the funds that they generate directly.
Even then, they'll always run losses because the international treaties rapes every western postal service. If Trump wants to do something useful he should unilaterally get the US out of the treaty of Bern.
The USPS is profitable. The reported shortfall in their budget was due to congress passing a new requirement (which only applied to the USPS) that they pre-fund their retirement account fully within five years. Meaning that the full retirement package for every postal service employee is fully paid. If every employee retired now (even if they were just hired and thus are not eligible for retirement benefits...) the full amount of their retirement pension is covered.
It is not a bad thing, but it was done in such a way as to make the USPS look bad.
You've gotta be pretty dumb to trust an icon, or even to not be skeptical of an LED.
Totally. You should only trust things that you have assembled from sub-atomic particles using the power of your own mind. Anything less and you are trusting that the evil ones have not subverted the purity of your essence! /sarc
At some point either you trust or you do without.
You complain to the OTA and let them deal with the hotel.
To the hotel you are just some dude complaining over a few dollars. The OTA is a contract worth millions.
If the OTA does not resolve the issue for you, then you contact your credit card company and dispute the charge.
Either you get what you were promised, or they don't get paid. That is the "value add" of the middlemen (the OTA and the CC company) -they have more leverage than you do when it comes to resolving problems.
We need to acknowledge, compare, sort, prioritize, then act on ALL of them, according to their final classification[...]
No. No, we do not need to do that.
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... Leave me to my chosen vices.
At this point I have to conclude I'm being trolled or you are mentally handicapped, so I'm going to bow out of the discussion.
As a 3rd party observer to this exchange, I would say that you are the one trolling.
Using an app to get a taxi does not change the fact that it is a taxi.
As a passenger, I don't give a shit who owns the car. There is one organization that sets all of the rules and all of the prices for all taxis. That's a monopoly. Uber drivers own their own cars too, but Uber is still a single organization. Just because a Taxi driver own's one medallion and one car doesn't make him any more independent than an Uber driver. That fact is precisely what this court case was about.
That "one organization" you are referring to is the local government. The next city over has another, completely separate "one organization" that sets the rules for all taxi companies that operate within it's jurisdiction.
I don't think you understand what monopoly means. Government regulation of an industry does not make it a monopoly.
So what happens when a genuine seller gets payment in advance, ships the goods, and then the buyer rolls back the transaction?
What if everybody starts rolling back transactions willy-nilly?
Then the banks start charging 3% transaction fees so they can include "free fraud protection" like the credit card companies do. I am sure they would be happy to do so...
With the solution to their woes being so simple I am not sure why they have not done it yet.
Because that does not solve their problem.
Their problem is that Google is not giving them money. Ergo the only possible solution is for Google to give them money.
FALSE
"Free speech" means that the government can't punish you for what you say.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech.
Freedom of speech means that the government may not prevent you from speaking (sharing your opinions), especially with regards to the government (aka political speech).
It's far from straightforward. Besides, even in the remotest fantasy that they could survive there, people will fuck it all up just the same.
Sure they will... but the point is we will learn a lot along the way.
What we learn from trying to do things is more valuable than just doing them.
I guess they didn't make the important part obvious enough: you are going to be paying for that increased price.
And it's at least partly due to an insistence we increase border security to keep out undocumented workers from stealing jobs. Jobs, it turns out, that no one wants but need to be done in order for us all to not starve.
There is no shortage of people who want these jobs. Come to the central valley of California and see for yourself.
And what shall we do with said battery when it has outlived its usefulness?
There is this new concept.. Recycling.
It's where we take old things and make new things out of them. You should read up on it.
We have tried repeatedly for almost three years to get a meeting with Karen and Bradley in order to discuss this and other claims we have concerning their and the Conservancy’s activities.
This is a red herring. Requesting a meeting is not how you go about asserting a trademark.
Typically a letter is sent stating your position. The opposing party can agree, disagree, request to discuss terms, or ignore you... Where you go from there varies, but you always start by giving notice in writing that there is an issue to be resolved.
Twenty-two countries, mostly those with smaller military budgets and lesser technical knowhow, have called for an outright ban, arguing that automated weapons are by definition illegal as every individual decision to launch a strike must be made by a human.
A bunch of nobodies are not going to convince the superpowers to agree. The EU, US, UK, China, Russia will not accept being told that they cannot develop the military technologies that they decide they need. Nuclear, chemical, biological... still got em.
Or we could simply cut the military to a reasonable size and tax upper income earners at rates in line with what the rest of the world do. Then we'd be asking how we are going to spend oir massive surplus.
No. We would be asking what the hell to do with all of these unemployed former military service people.
It is not a pretty picture.
... but I'm not sure what's going on with the idiots posting further up in this discussion.
Wow, have I, idiot been summoned?
No. I think *I* was being summoned...
bitch about it.
http://sitedown.co/
for Amazon, it is http://sitedown.co/amazoncom
Logic fail.
or to put it another way:
" You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Terry Gilliam's interpretation of Orwell's 1984: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/
While commonly held to be good practices, many of the actions listed are actionable -some are even criminal. Be very sure you know where you stand legally before attempting to detain someone against their will, or to deprive them of their personal property. Most likely you will be fine, but all it takes is one person asserting their rights, and someone overzealously acting on the company's behalf, and you have a serious problem.