You do realize, don't you, that this is a civil suit and has nothing to do with legal or illegal?
You do realize, don't you, that a civil suit requires the plaintiff show that the defendant, by commission or omission, breached some legal duty?
Sure you can sue anybody for anything. But if you're missing any proof that the law (statute or common) requires the defendant to behave differently than he did, your case gets tossed out, perhaps with a penalty for wasting the court's time with something that was obviously bogus.
I once sat on a jury in a civil case where the plaintiff sued because his horse shied and threw him when it saw the defendant's mule. If the defendant failed in some legal duty, it wasn't mentioned in the trial; just "His mule made my horse throw me, resulting in grevious injury." Not thrown out, no penalties imposed other than wasting the jury's time on several days of nonsense.
Don't be a grammer Notsie. Irregardless, if you're going to tow that line you will have a hard roll to hoe. For all intensive purposes, it doesn't make any deference; it's a mute point.
I know the Sanders supporters are going to claim until they die that Bernie won and Clinton stole the nomination, but the superdelegates did not put her over the top.
Maybe, maybe not; we'll never really know. Numerically the supers didn't put her over the top; however, the numbers were announced early in the primary campaign and certainly made her look unbeatable from the start. Given the tendency of a lot of people to want to vote for the winner, this could have had a huge effect on the outcome of the primary elections.
Anyone who has used a touch laptop knows how nice it is to be able to reach out and scroll the screen or tap things on it instead of fiddling with the touch pad or mouse.
I am a member of the set of people you are trying to speak for, and I'm here to tell you you're wrong in saying I know how nice it is. I have a touchscreen Win10 laptop; aside from playing around with touch the day I got it, the only thing I've ever used touch for is to swipe to get to the login screen, and that only a handful of times. Touch is inaccurate, inconvenient compared to the touchpad, and results in a smudged screen. If you like it, fine; use it. But don't kid yourself that everyone feels that way.
The issue is being tagged in pictures taken by others, I thought.
Not tagging; face recognition, which is not the same thing. You can't stop anyone from tagging you, but as noted upthread, if you deny Face Recognition permission, they say they won't run their recognition algorithm on you, regardless of who posts your picture.
Except images containing you are not necessarily yours. They are legally property of the person that took the picture. By uploading an image they owned the owner agreed to have the facial recognition algorithm to be run on it.
...says the AC who's never actually looked at the Facial Recognition permission setting in Facebook:
Face Recognition Do you want Facebook to be able to recognize you in photos and videos?
Note that it doesn't say, "Do you want Facebook to be able to recognize anyone in the photos and videos posted by you", or, "Do you want Facebook to be able to recognize you in the photos and videos posted by you".
The advertisers we're being sold to, who are hocking products we don't want and aren't going to buy?
If you posted that on Facebook, you might start seeing ads for dictionaries. Why would anyone care if advertisers sell their products to pawn shops? Or did you mean they're hawking their products?
It would have taken you about a minute on Wikipedia to cure yourself of your blinding ignorance. Mabe two or three minutes if you move your lips as you read.
Also, wtf did they get arrested for? This is a civil matter.
Stealing trade secrets (and yes, revealing them to unauthorized persons constitutes stealing) is a Federal crime. No, not all the leaks involved trade secrets. Apparently 12 cases did. But you'd know all this if you'd bothered to RTFA (yeah, I know).
TFA didn't explain that design decision. Since I have to guess, I'm going to go with, "The number of cars the system would have to charge if traffic were bumper-to-bumper and stopped or barely moving (e.g., Los Angeles' I405 during rush hour) would exceed the power delivery of the system."
Your original post mentioned covering the last mile. TFA covered something very similar -- the long-term plan is to electrify highways, but not local roads. I believe they said the average distance between highways is something like 25km, so the time spent on the highway should supply enough charge to cover that distance.
This leads me to believe it is a proof of concept, and not a charger. The idea is that cars would use the power instead of batteries, and not charge off of it.
Really? TFA leads me to believe you might be incorrect:
Headline: World's first electrified road for charging vehicles opens in SwedenWorld's first electrified road for charging vehicles opens in Sweden
Sub-head: Stretch of road outside Stockholm transfers energy from two tracks of rail in the road, recharging the batteries of electric cars and trucks
First sentence: The world’s first electrified road that recharges the batteries of cars and trucks driving on it has been opened in Sweden.
Those are very interesting, though I noticed that almost all of the citations are over 20 years old, which makes me wonder why more recent data is absent.
One thing I'm left to wonder about: the studies say the Fair Tax is revenue neutral. Under the current system, nearly half of American workers pay zero income tax, and the overwhelming majority of them are not below poverty level and hence would not be exempt from consumption tax. On the surface, it appears that those workers would face a large increase in Federal taxation.
There are a lot of optimistic assumptions wrapped up in that post.
They might be used to lower the price of the product
This assumes that the cost of labor is a significant driver for price, which it isn't for low-paying jobs.
they might be used to increase wages
This assumes that competitors are willing to pay your low-paid workers more than you are. Again, not really true for low-paying jobs.
they might be used to increase dividends of their stock
This assumes that the employer is a public corporation that actually pays dividends. Demonstrably untrue for most jobs in the US. Anyway, you missed a significant "might": They might be used automate production so the business owner doesn't have so many unreliable human workers that don't show up every day, get injured on the job, and otherwise drive up costs.
If the demand for labor exceeds the supply, which is almost certain under the Fair Tax because of the dramatically increased business opportunities in the USA
Unless you can cite a reputable study, the proposition that the Fair Tax drives "dramatically increased business opportunities in the USA" is opinion stated as fact. Your passionate belief doesn't make it true.
if the job has a learning curve at all
One of the major factors making low-paying jobs low paying, is that they don't have much of a learning curve. That's why there's a bountiful supply of qualified workers.
the poor are actually paying them "employer's share" of the payroll taxes whether they know it or not, because the employer simply lowers their wages to make up for the money he has to cough up to Washington for the payroll taxes he sends in
If you believe that, you must also believe that if employers were relieved of the requirement to pay their share of payroll taxes, the savings would be passed on to the employees. Right?
By the way, Social Security benefits are capped just like the tax is. When you stop contributing, your benefit stops growing.
From your linked article:
Transactional Fees These fees are assessed every time you run a transaction. They represent the biggest cost of operating a merchant account.
So, how big is the transactional fee? According to the article, 2.10% plus $0.10. IMHO, that's not unreasonable for the convenience. Of course, it's passed on to consumers. All the consumers. Even the ones who pay cash. So, if you're paying cash, you're subsidizing the ones who use credit cards.
And of course, the humongous interest the CC issuer charges is only an issue if you carry a balance. Yeah, I know, lots and lots of people carry significant credit card debt. Personally, I haven't paid a dime in credit card interest in many years.
People who regularly eat fast food with similar heritage, sex, age and height weighs 16.3% more than the average of 193lbs at 5'3", that's interesting by itself.
193 pounds is average weight for a 5''3" person? That isn't interesting, it's terrifying. The normal/overweight border for that height is 141 pounds.
Yes that's correct, compassion for people who committed a minor civil violation in order to come here and help their families.
Well, that depends upon how they "come here".
The civil violation is "unlawful presence", and can come about a number of ways, such as illegal entry or overstaying a visa.
Illegal entry, aka, border jumping, is most definitely a criminal -- not civil -- offense that carries a penalty of not more than 6 months in prison, and a fine of up to $250.
There should be a -1 Uniformed Partisanship moderation.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize, don't you, that this is a civil suit and has nothing to do with legal or illegal?
You do realize, don't you, that a civil suit requires the plaintiff show that the defendant, by commission or omission, breached some legal duty?
Sure you can sue anybody for anything. But if you're missing any proof that the law (statute or common) requires the defendant to behave differently than he did, your case gets tossed out, perhaps with a penalty for wasting the court's time with something that was obviously bogus.
I once sat on a jury in a civil case where the plaintiff sued because his horse shied and threw him when it saw the defendant's mule. If the defendant failed in some legal duty, it wasn't mentioned in the trial; just "His mule made my horse throw me, resulting in grevious injury." Not thrown out, no penalties imposed other than wasting the jury's time on several days of nonsense.
Don't be a grammer Notsie. Irregardless, if you're going to tow that line you will have a hard roll to hoe. For all intensive purposes, it doesn't make any deference; it's a mute point.
I know the Sanders supporters are going to claim until they die that Bernie won and Clinton stole the nomination, but the superdelegates did not put her over the top.
Maybe, maybe not; we'll never really know. Numerically the supers didn't put her over the top; however, the numbers were announced early in the primary campaign and certainly made her look unbeatable from the start. Given the tendency of a lot of people to want to vote for the winner, this could have had a huge effect on the outcome of the primary elections.
They have no case, even against themselves. Bernie lost because the DNC rigged the primary - legally.
You do realize, don't you, that this is a civil suit and has nothing to do with legal or illegal?
Anyone who has used a touch laptop knows how nice it is to be able to reach out and scroll the screen or tap things on it instead of fiddling with the touch pad or mouse.
I am a member of the set of people you are trying to speak for, and I'm here to tell you you're wrong in saying I know how nice it is. I have a touchscreen Win10 laptop; aside from playing around with touch the day I got it, the only thing I've ever used touch for is to swipe to get to the login screen, and that only a handful of times. Touch is inaccurate, inconvenient compared to the touchpad, and results in a smudged screen. If you like it, fine; use it. But don't kid yourself that everyone feels that way.
I don't think that's what users want.
Right. Just like a headphone jack on the iPhone, or Thunderbolt-2 and MagSafe ports on the MacBook Pro, which absolutely no users want at all.
The issue is being tagged in pictures taken by others, I thought.
Not tagging; face recognition, which is not the same thing. You can't stop anyone from tagging you, but as noted upthread, if you deny Face Recognition permission, they say they won't run their recognition algorithm on you, regardless of who posts your picture.
Except images containing you are not necessarily yours. They are legally property of the person that took the picture. By uploading an image they owned the owner agreed to have the facial recognition algorithm to be run on it.
...says the AC who's never actually looked at the Facial Recognition permission setting in Facebook:
Face Recognition
Do you want Facebook to be able to recognize you in photos and videos?
Note that it doesn't say, "Do you want Facebook to be able to recognize anyone in the photos and videos posted by you", or, "Do you want Facebook to be able to recognize you in the photos and videos posted by you".
The advertisers we're being sold to, who are hocking products we don't want and aren't going to buy?
If you posted that on Facebook, you might start seeing ads for dictionaries. Why would anyone care if advertisers sell their products to pawn shops? Or did you mean they're hawking their products?
It would have taken you about a minute on Wikipedia to cure yourself of your blinding ignorance. Mabe two or three minutes if you move your lips as you read.
they are out of their debt, and have no idea of the gravit they are doing
I believe you're out of your depth, buddy./p
Also, wtf did they get arrested for? This is a civil matter.
Stealing trade secrets (and yes, revealing them to unauthorized persons constitutes stealing) is a Federal crime. No, not all the leaks involved trade secrets. Apparently 12 cases did. But you'd know all this if you'd bothered to RTFA (yeah, I know).
If he really wants to build 5000 cars a month, there will HAVE to be some crazy network of conveyors, they'll be making about 250 cars a day.
LOL. "250 cars a day" was achieved over 100 years ago without automation or crazy networks of conveyors.
For example: By 1914, the moving assembly line made it possible to produce thousands of [Ford Model T] cars every week
Fair enough.
Why does it not charge stopped cars then?
TFA didn't explain that design decision. Since I have to guess, I'm going to go with, "The number of cars the system would have to charge if traffic were bumper-to-bumper and stopped or barely moving (e.g., Los Angeles' I405 during rush hour) would exceed the power delivery of the system."
Your original post mentioned covering the last mile. TFA covered something very similar -- the long-term plan is to electrify highways, but not local roads. I believe they said the average distance between highways is something like 25km, so the time spent on the highway should supply enough charge to cover that distance.
This leads me to believe it is a proof of concept, and not a charger. The idea is that cars would use the power instead of batteries, and not charge off of it.
Really? TFA leads me to believe you might be incorrect:
Headline: World's first electrified road for charging vehicles opens in SwedenWorld's first electrified road for charging vehicles opens in Sweden
Sub-head: Stretch of road outside Stockholm transfers energy from two tracks of rail in the road, recharging the batteries of electric cars and trucks
First sentence: The world’s first electrified road that recharges the batteries of cars and trucks driving on it has been opened in Sweden.
The drivers work when they want to and are free to nap, run personal errands, or smoke cigarettes in between rides
Sounds like some of the employees of the company I work for.
And are all of the accounts actually promoting terrorism, or just shit that Twitter disagrees with?
From TFS:Almost 75% of accounts were suspended before they sent their first tweet
Those are very interesting, though I noticed that almost all of the citations are over 20 years old, which makes me wonder why more recent data is absent.
One thing I'm left to wonder about: the studies say the Fair Tax is revenue neutral. Under the current system, nearly half of American workers pay zero income tax, and the overwhelming majority of them are not below poverty level and hence would not be exempt from consumption tax. On the surface, it appears that those workers would face a large increase in Federal taxation.
There are a lot of optimistic assumptions wrapped up in that post.
They might be used to lower the price of the product
This assumes that the cost of labor is a significant driver for price, which it isn't for low-paying jobs.
they might be used to increase wages
This assumes that competitors are willing to pay your low-paid workers more than you are. Again, not really true for low-paying jobs.
they might be used to increase dividends of their stock
This assumes that the employer is a public corporation that actually pays dividends. Demonstrably untrue for most jobs in the US. Anyway, you missed a significant "might": They might be used automate production so the business owner doesn't have so many unreliable human workers that don't show up every day, get injured on the job, and otherwise drive up costs.
If the demand for labor exceeds the supply, which is almost certain under the Fair Tax because of the dramatically increased business opportunities in the USA
Unless you can cite a reputable study, the proposition that the Fair Tax drives "dramatically increased business opportunities in the USA" is opinion stated as fact. Your passionate belief doesn't make it true.
if the job has a learning curve at all
One of the major factors making low-paying jobs low paying, is that they don't have much of a learning curve. That's why there's a bountiful supply of qualified workers.
the poor are actually paying them "employer's share" of the payroll taxes whether they know it or not, because the employer simply lowers their wages to make up for the money he has to cough up to Washington for the payroll taxes he sends in
If you believe that, you must also believe that if employers were relieved of the requirement to pay their share of payroll taxes, the savings would be passed on to the employees. Right?
By the way, Social Security benefits are capped just like the tax is. When you stop contributing, your benefit stops growing.
From your linked article:
Transactional Fees
These fees are assessed every time you run a transaction. They represent the biggest cost of operating a merchant account.
So, how big is the transactional fee? According to the article, 2.10% plus $0.10. IMHO, that's not unreasonable for the convenience. Of course, it's passed on to consumers. All the consumers. Even the ones who pay cash. So, if you're paying cash, you're subsidizing the ones who use credit cards.
And of course, the humongous interest the CC issuer charges is only an issue if you carry a balance. Yeah, I know, lots and lots of people carry significant credit card debt. Personally, I haven't paid a dime in credit card interest in many years.
People who regularly eat fast food with similar heritage, sex, age and height weighs 16.3% more than the average of 193lbs at 5'3", that's interesting by itself.
193 pounds is average weight for a 5''3" person? That isn't interesting, it's terrifying. The normal/overweight border for that height is 141 pounds.
1. Install the app.
2. Do not run the app until completing step 3.
3. Turn off all the permissions you don't want the app to have.
4. Relax
Why if our government tried anything like that we'd all just pick up our AR-15s and march down to the Capitol and....
Hey, where'd everybody go?
Everybody's down at the corner, shooting at the jaywalking cameras.
Yes that's correct, compassion for people who committed a minor civil violation in order to come here and help their families.
Well, that depends upon how they "come here".
The civil violation is "unlawful presence", and can come about a number of ways, such as illegal entry or overstaying a visa.
Illegal entry, aka, border jumping, is most definitely a criminal -- not civil -- offense that carries a penalty of not more than 6 months in prison, and a fine of up to $250.
There should be a -1 Uniformed Partisanship moderation.
I agree with you on that one.