I work for a municipality (and actually, on the property tax software). If you don't pay your taxes (for several years - a tax auction doesn't occur for a 1-year delinquent property) it is forcibly sold at auction . . . and you get the proceeds - after the taxes are taken out.
And even then you still have a year to reclaim your property from the buyer as long as you can pay the taxes plus 3% of whatever their bid for the property was.
Don't confuse the concept of ownership with things having requirements. You live in a modern society - we collect property taxes (or at least some places do), and we have to have a means to get people to pay those taxes. If we didn't, no one would bother.
Based on what? I hate Jeb but he is still the most likely nomination. He has a huge money advantage
Huh?
Jeb Bush net worth: $10 million (according to the article I'm linking,though I've seen lower estimates and some as high as $22 million) Donald Trump net worth: $10 billion (again, according to the link, though this could be as "low" as $4 billion)
Even taking the highest and lowest numbers for Bush and Trump, respectively, Trump has at least 2 orders of magnitude more money.
I don't know - but I do know that that is a SINGLE ISSUE in the vast array of topics being discussed in this election. The left is simply splintered on different issues.
I actually have no issue with speeding. People tend to drive at a speed they're comfortable with anyways and all "speeding" typically does is act a revenue generator by making a crime to drive above a speed usually ~10 MPH under what is actually safe for an area.
Drunk driving I attribute to reckless endangerment, which is bad. Owning the gun is equitable with being able to get drunk in the first place - no problem. Driving drunk would be the equivalent of walking outside and pointing it at your neighbors.
Bringing a bomb on an airplane I think shouldn't be a crime (because I actually have no issues with people owning them in general), but against airline regulations to carry one aboard on your person, and willful violation of a contract should be a crime.
Freedom comes with some costs. We'll send a million men to war to fight and die to preserve our freedom but if a half-dozen people die in a shooting the plebs all start thinking about ways to ban things and make things illegal.
For the most part, let people live their lives unobstructed by the government except for the most obvious of crimes. I don't want the government to ban just about anything: guns, video games, porn, gay marriage, drugs, prostitution, large sodas, or any other "vice" from EITHER side of the political spectrum: just let people live their lives how they want.
You have to understand my reasoning - I'm against laws against things because of potential domino effects.
For example, a lot of people "justify" outlawing drugs or prostitution because if it's legal it will "cause other crimes" just by their very nature.
My viewpoint is always that only things that are already bad - in and of themselves - should be illegal. Rape? Already bad. Illegal. Murder? Same. Theft? Yep, that's bad, it should be illegal.
HOWEVER, simply owning a gun does not harm anyone. Even if you completely set the constitutional angle aside, guns are only "bad" to people worrying about ancillary crimes that they might "cause". That's a line of reasoning I will never accept, because it leads to a nanny state.
If you seek to prevent murder, then outlaw murder, not guns. If you seek to prevent rape, then outlaw rape, not prostitution. If you seek to outlaw theft, then outlaw theft, don't impose curfews.
We get it. The new rulers of/. are Republicans and hate us.
You do realize that Republicans (at least publicly) are generally the ones that are the most against porn right?
I swear I wish I could found the "Hands off" party with the simple goal of not messing with people.
Guns? It's a constitutional right - don't mess with them. Porn? Same. Leave it alone. Video games? It's not turning kids into murderers. Leave them alone too. Weed? Doesn't harm anyone else. Legalize it. Prostitution? As long as its between consenting adults (and if it's not its rape, not prostitution anyways), then legalize it too.
Each party is pandering to their respective bases trying to ban whatever that group doesn't like - I just want politicians to leave things alone for once.
Honestly Japan being much more condensed it probably makes sense. In the US we're too spread out to abandon certain technologies yet. My parents still have (3Mbps) DLS as their only option. I have a brother who doesn't even have that. He uses he cell phone for all his internet browsing occasionally tethering it to a desktop.
I live in a town - a small town (population ~8,000), but still a town, and we have good cable modem speeds but only the newest neighborhoods have fiber available (the local telecom company has installed it in new developments since 2010 or so, but hasn't retrofitted any older subdivisions).
Yes, definitely. Facebook IS a social media site. That's ALL it is. When I post things or pictures on there, it's stuff I'm explicitly putting out there for public consumption.
Google on the other hand, has a TON of services that contain private data. GMail, the search engine, and Drive. Heck even Picasa - it's a photo album program but many people were using it before it was "social". I'd upload pictures to link to in various forums and such. Took me by great surprise when I uploaded one right after Google+ went live and started getting comments on it. Granted, it was nothing embarrassing as I was linking it in a public discussion elsewhere, but what had been a gallery I had to provide a link to earlier was now just open for people in my "circles" to view. It's not the situation that's bad - it's that it STARTED as something else and then morphed into that.
Put simply - I don't have any issue with social media existing, but I don't want every single thing I use to be "socially connected".
If he was using buckshot, he'd have nine (or fewer) pellets to work with.
Well, not necessarily. The "standard" 00 load for 2.75" shells is 9 pellets, but you can increase the pellet count by either going with longer shells or smaller pellets.
Most 3.5" 00 12 ga loads have 18 pellets. I've also seen 12 ga 3.5" loads with #4 buckshot pellets rather than 00 that have 33 pellets.
I will say that PERSONALLY, when I shoot buckshot (mostly when deer hunting - it's legal at certain times here), my most common load is a 3" 12ga 00 load with 15 pellets.
Its not, but the drone's altitude was stated in feet. If you don't know what feet OR yards are, you can at least compare 120 feet to 200 feet at lot easier than 40 yards to 200 feet.
Once you know that, you can look up or download the algorithm and generate valud numbers all day.
And so can a kid. It's been a long time ago (33 years) but when I was 11-12 I had a VERY good concept of programming and how to tinker. The internet wasn't really a thing in most households yet but I still knew computers, and most kids these days do too - even moreso.
And even though internet porn wasn't around back then - guess what - we still had porn as kids. Typically it was in the form of a magazine that some kid smuggled out of his dad's collection, so it certainly wasn't in the same volume, but every kid in the neighborhood seen it and almost all grew up to be perfectly normal adults.
This is all focused on nothing - by the time someone is aware enough about sex to try and access a website, they're GOING to be able to get that content.
No, it wouldn't. Birdshot is INTENDED to be fired into the air - at - you guessed it: birds. Completely different situation versus a bullet. Anybody who has hunted upland birds or waterfowl in an area with many hunters has been pelted by falling shot before. By the time it comes back down its not going fast enough to hurt anything.
It says he shot it down with a shotgun. Unlike a bullet from a rifle or handgun, most small-diameter shotgun loads (ie, "birdshot") are designed to be fired into the air at flying targets - either birds or clay pigeons (skeet). Their mass is low enough that it doesn't hurt anything when it comes back down. I've been pelted by shot from other hunters while out hunting and while a bit disconcerting, it doesn't even sting.
Any species that doesn't feel a very strong need to reproduce will eventually die out. Wanting "Babies, BABIES, BABIES!" is a required long term survival trait.
What is considered "fit" isn't so simple as a longer neck or stronger muscles.
Technology and social structure are PART of evolution. As a matter of fact it seems that such things outweigh almost any of the other "natural" advantages a species might have.
At the end of the day, we squabble, and we can be short sighted, but the human race is the most evolved and complex species to ever walk this planet. From an evolutionary standpoint we're crowding everything else out. Honestly I don't think most species will survive long-term unless they are of use to us - either as pets, food, or work animals.
There's no shortage of pretty good beer in the US (heck I make my own). The problem is that only a small percentage of people actually want it. Anything beyond Budweiser or Coors Light is considered "weird tasting". That's changing, but for the most part people are drinking that "mass marketed barley water" by choice, not out of lack of options.
That doesn't mean they are all literate on the command line or that they understand a lot of the stuff that goes on behind the scenes, but I daresay most of them understand the difference between open source vs. proprietary.
Don't confuse knowing the difference with caring about it. I've using Linux since the late 1990's. I have a CS degree and am a programmer for a living. I understand very well the "free in beer vs free as in speech" argument.
HOWEVER, most people really only care about the "zero cost" definition of free. And when it comes to open source most only care about the source actually being available, not whether its under the GPL or not.
"Libre" as it is applied by the zealots is a concept that only a very small subset of computer users care about - even if they understand it. You're not going to get them outraged by explaining it.
Consider the opposite: lets say Ubuntu listed software as "Free", but when you clicked install it prompted you for payment credentials for $5, with the justification being that you're free to modify the source and do as you wish, but the software has a monetary cost. THEN you'd see outrage because it'd be stepping on the definition of free that people actually care about.
Yes, I pay taxes. My salary doesn't come from THOSE taxes though (income taxes). It comes from different taxes - namely, property taxes.
So I guess you could say I shouldn't be billed property taxes. Ok - what about someone who works where I do but lives in a different jurisdiction (very common)? That jurisdiction isn't going to give up THEIR revenue because he works for a different one, and it wouldn't be fair to the other employee that they still have to pay property taxes while I don't because I live in the same jurisdiction where I work.
Or consider someone who is renting - they're not paying property taxes anyways - but his landlord certainly is, and you can bet it's folded into his monthly bill. Why should I get to own a house tax free whilst he's having to foot his landlord's taxes as part of the payment?
I know, I know. We could hire someone to figure out all these exceptions and such, and then straighten it all out. Make sure that Federal government employees don't pay Federal income taxes but still pay state, and state employees pay federal but not state. And local government employees pay both but no property tax *IF* they're living in the same jurisdiction they work in.
Congratulations - you just rehired those recently laid off IRS employees that you thought weren't needed under this new "simple" system.
Slashdot Mirror
I work for a municipality (and actually, on the property tax software). If you don't pay your taxes (for several years - a tax auction doesn't occur for a 1-year delinquent property) it is forcibly sold at auction . . . and you get the proceeds - after the taxes are taken out.
And even then you still have a year to reclaim your property from the buyer as long as you can pay the taxes plus 3% of whatever their bid for the property was.
Don't confuse the concept of ownership with things having requirements. You live in a modern society - we collect property taxes (or at least some places do), and we have to have a means to get people to pay those taxes. If we didn't, no one would bother.
If you're using Wireshark you're either part of IT, or you shouldn't be using it on a corporate computer. It's not an end user tool.
No environment I've ever been in gives the general users access to install software.
Based on what? I hate Jeb but he is still the most likely nomination. He has a huge money advantage
Huh?
Jeb Bush net worth: $10 million (according to the article I'm linking,though I've seen lower estimates and some as high as $22 million)
Donald Trump net worth: $10 billion (again, according to the link, though this could be as "low" as $4 billion)
Even taking the highest and lowest numbers for Bush and Trump, respectively, Trump has at least 2 orders of magnitude more money.
http://presidential-candidates...
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Don't ends take your focus away from the damage the means can do - particularly when the ends isn't even realistically achievable.
I don't know - but I do know that that is a SINGLE ISSUE in the vast array of topics being discussed in this election. The left is simply splintered on different issues.
The summary is a bit off. They are complaining that users cannot install these applications on their own, not that they do not exist.
Which would also be puzzling, as in any normal corporate setup users can't install software on their own Windows machines either.
You miscalculated. 23.3% under 18 + 14.1% over 65 = 37.4%,not 47.4% as you stated.
I actually have no issue with speeding. People tend to drive at a speed they're comfortable with anyways and all "speeding" typically does is act a revenue generator by making a crime to drive above a speed usually ~10 MPH under what is actually safe for an area.
Drunk driving I attribute to reckless endangerment, which is bad. Owning the gun is equitable with being able to get drunk in the first place - no problem. Driving drunk would be the equivalent of walking outside and pointing it at your neighbors.
Bringing a bomb on an airplane I think shouldn't be a crime (because I actually have no issues with people owning them in general), but against airline regulations to carry one aboard on your person, and willful violation of a contract should be a crime.
Freedom comes with some costs. We'll send a million men to war to fight and die to preserve our freedom but if a half-dozen people die in a shooting the plebs all start thinking about ways to ban things and make things illegal.
For the most part, let people live their lives unobstructed by the government except for the most obvious of crimes. I don't want the government to ban just about anything: guns, video games, porn, gay marriage, drugs, prostitution, large sodas, or any other "vice" from EITHER side of the political spectrum: just let people live their lives how they want.
You have to understand my reasoning - I'm against laws against things because of potential domino effects.
For example, a lot of people "justify" outlawing drugs or prostitution because if it's legal it will "cause other crimes" just by their very nature.
My viewpoint is always that only things that are already bad - in and of themselves - should be illegal. Rape? Already bad. Illegal. Murder? Same. Theft? Yep, that's bad, it should be illegal.
HOWEVER, simply owning a gun does not harm anyone. Even if you completely set the constitutional angle aside, guns are only "bad" to people worrying about ancillary crimes that they might "cause". That's a line of reasoning I will never accept, because it leads to a nanny state.
If you seek to prevent murder, then outlaw murder, not guns. If you seek to prevent rape, then outlaw rape, not prostitution. If you seek to outlaw theft, then outlaw theft, don't impose curfews.
We get it. The new rulers of /. are Republicans and hate us.
You do realize that Republicans (at least publicly) are generally the ones that are the most against porn right?
I swear I wish I could found the "Hands off" party with the simple goal of not messing with people.
Guns? It's a constitutional right - don't mess with them.
Porn? Same. Leave it alone.
Video games? It's not turning kids into murderers. Leave them alone too.
Weed? Doesn't harm anyone else. Legalize it.
Prostitution? As long as its between consenting adults (and if it's not its rape, not prostitution anyways), then legalize it too.
Each party is pandering to their respective bases trying to ban whatever that group doesn't like - I just want politicians to leave things alone for once.
Honestly Japan being much more condensed it probably makes sense. In the US we're too spread out to abandon certain technologies yet. My parents still have (3Mbps) DLS as their only option. I have a brother who doesn't even have that. He uses he cell phone for all his internet browsing occasionally tethering it to a desktop.
I live in a town - a small town (population ~8,000), but still a town, and we have good cable modem speeds but only the newest neighborhoods have fiber available (the local telecom company has installed it in new developments since 2010 or so, but hasn't retrofitted any older subdivisions).
Yes, definitely. Facebook IS a social media site. That's ALL it is. When I post things or pictures on there, it's stuff I'm explicitly putting out there for public consumption.
Google on the other hand, has a TON of services that contain private data. GMail, the search engine, and Drive. Heck even Picasa - it's a photo album program but many people were using it before it was "social". I'd upload pictures to link to in various forums and such. Took me by great surprise when I uploaded one right after Google+ went live and started getting comments on it. Granted, it was nothing embarrassing as I was linking it in a public discussion elsewhere, but what had been a gallery I had to provide a link to earlier was now just open for people in my "circles" to view. It's not the situation that's bad - it's that it STARTED as something else and then morphed into that.
Put simply - I don't have any issue with social media existing, but I don't want every single thing I use to be "socially connected".
If he was using buckshot, he'd have nine (or fewer) pellets to work with.
Well, not necessarily. The "standard" 00 load for 2.75" shells is 9 pellets, but you can increase the pellet count by either going with longer shells or smaller pellets.
Most 3.5" 00 12 ga loads have 18 pellets. I've also seen 12 ga 3.5" loads with #4 buckshot pellets rather than 00 that have 33 pellets.
I will say that PERSONALLY, when I shoot buckshot (mostly when deer hunting - it's legal at certain times here), my most common load is a 3" 12ga 00 load with 15 pellets.
Its not, but the drone's altitude was stated in feet. If you don't know what feet OR yards are, you can at least compare 120 feet to 200 feet at lot easier than 40 yards to 200 feet.
Once you know that, you can look up or download the algorithm and generate valud numbers all day.
And so can a kid. It's been a long time ago (33 years) but when I was 11-12 I had a VERY good concept of programming and how to tinker. The internet wasn't really a thing in most households yet but I still knew computers, and most kids these days do too - even moreso.
And even though internet porn wasn't around back then - guess what - we still had porn as kids. Typically it was in the form of a magazine that some kid smuggled out of his dad's collection, so it certainly wasn't in the same volume, but every kid in the neighborhood seen it and almost all grew up to be perfectly normal adults.
This is all focused on nothing - by the time someone is aware enough about sex to try and access a website, they're GOING to be able to get that content.
That was a direct hit - not falling shot. Completely different situation.
No, it wouldn't. Birdshot is INTENDED to be fired into the air - at - you guessed it: birds. Completely different situation versus a bullet. Anybody who has hunted upland birds or waterfowl in an area with many hunters has been pelted by falling shot before. By the time it comes back down its not going fast enough to hurt anything.
It says he shot it down with a shotgun. Unlike a bullet from a rifle or handgun, most small-diameter shotgun loads (ie, "birdshot") are designed to be fired into the air at flying targets - either birds or clay pigeons (skeet). Their mass is low enough that it doesn't hurt anything when it comes back down. I've been pelted by shot from other hunters while out hunting and while a bit disconcerting, it doesn't even sting.
Anon for president!
My sister was arrested for DUI a few years back and it was the same. I got like 5 calls within a 5-6 hour span.
Kicker was it was a "collect" call that the recipient had to pay $15 to receive.
Any species that doesn't feel a very strong need to reproduce will eventually die out. Wanting "Babies, BABIES, BABIES!" is a required long term survival trait.
What is considered "fit" isn't so simple as a longer neck or stronger muscles.
Technology and social structure are PART of evolution. As a matter of fact it seems that such things outweigh almost any of the other "natural" advantages a species might have.
At the end of the day, we squabble, and we can be short sighted, but the human race is the most evolved and complex species to ever walk this planet. From an evolutionary standpoint we're crowding everything else out. Honestly I don't think most species will survive long-term unless they are of use to us - either as pets, food, or work animals.
There's no shortage of pretty good beer in the US (heck I make my own). The problem is that only a small percentage of people actually want it. Anything beyond Budweiser or Coors Light is considered "weird tasting". That's changing, but for the most part people are drinking that "mass marketed barley water" by choice, not out of lack of options.
That doesn't mean they are all literate on the command line or that they understand a lot of the stuff that goes on behind the scenes, but I daresay most of them understand the difference between open source vs. proprietary.
Don't confuse knowing the difference with caring about it. I've using Linux since the late 1990's. I have a CS degree and am a programmer for a living. I understand very well the "free in beer vs free as in speech" argument.
HOWEVER, most people really only care about the "zero cost" definition of free. And when it comes to open source most only care about the source actually being available, not whether its under the GPL or not.
"Libre" as it is applied by the zealots is a concept that only a very small subset of computer users care about - even if they understand it. You're not going to get them outraged by explaining it.
Consider the opposite: lets say Ubuntu listed software as "Free", but when you clicked install it prompted you for payment credentials for $5, with the justification being that you're free to modify the source and do as you wish, but the software has a monetary cost. THEN you'd see outrage because it'd be stepping on the definition of free that people actually care about.
Yes, I pay taxes. My salary doesn't come from THOSE taxes though (income taxes). It comes from different taxes - namely, property taxes.
So I guess you could say I shouldn't be billed property taxes. Ok - what about someone who works where I do but lives in a different jurisdiction (very common)? That jurisdiction isn't going to give up THEIR revenue because he works for a different one, and it wouldn't be fair to the other employee that they still have to pay property taxes while I don't because I live in the same jurisdiction where I work.
Or consider someone who is renting - they're not paying property taxes anyways - but his landlord certainly is, and you can bet it's folded into his monthly bill. Why should I get to own a house tax free whilst he's having to foot his landlord's taxes as part of the payment?
I know, I know. We could hire someone to figure out all these exceptions and such, and then straighten it all out. Make sure that Federal government employees don't pay Federal income taxes but still pay state, and state employees pay federal but not state. And local government employees pay both but no property tax *IF* they're living in the same jurisdiction they work in.
Congratulations - you just rehired those recently laid off IRS employees that you thought weren't needed under this new "simple" system.