Threatening to punch anyone they see wearing them in the face isn't bullying; is that what you are trying to say?
Your hyperbole is showing.
That's not exactly hyperbole. Consider some of the comments in this thread alone
Can they capture the full wind-up and followthrough of SnapChat glasses being slugged off someone's face?
Does it come with a disclaimer that says.. "When you get punched in the face because of these glasses, and you will get punched in the face because of these glasses, you cannot hold SnapChat legally responsible because you are an asshat."
If a person wants or expects privacy, I believe that the onus is upon them to take measures to sufficient degree
They do. They beat the crap out of glassholes. Sufficient measures thus taken, effective privacy is restored.
Some people seem to have no trouble advocating physical violence against people merely for openly carrying a camera (which seems silly because if you want to surreptitiously record people there are plenty of ways to do it that are much less obvious). I hope this is just a case of people "being tough on the Internet", but even so, the ferocity of the response seems totally out of proportion.
Bart: Please Dad!
Homer: No!
Bart: Please Dad!
Homer: No!
Bart: Please Dad! (And so on...)
Homer: No!!! Now look son we all know that usually when you bug me like this I give in, so I'm not mad at you for trying. It shows you have been paying attention. But we all know I'm not going to give you 100 dollars! Now are you going to stop bugging me?
Bart: No!
Homer: Are you?
Bart: No!
Homer: Are you?
Bart: No!
Homer: Are you? (And so on...)
Bart: OKAY!!
The problems with taxing muni bonds at the normal progressive tax rates is that wealthy people or institutional investors no longer have any incentive to finance public works...The problem with taxing long-term capital gains at the normal progressive tax rates is that wealthy people or institutional investors no longer have any incentive to invest in ownership stakes in those corporations
Isn't that like saying "The problem with taxing employment income at the normal progressive tax rates is that people will have no incentive to get a job"? Just because you tax one thing at a slightly higher rate than something else (or at a higher rate than has been done historically) doesn't mean it won't still be the better than the alternative options. Would that actually be the case for stocks or municipal bonds? I have no idea. But I'd say it's hardly a foregone conclusion.
If there's a 30% chance that someone will fall within the designated "average" range
Why would you assume there's only a 30% chance of that someone would fall within the middle 30 per cent of the range? That would only be true if we assumed for some reason that people would be uniformly distributed throughout the range.
and assuming the dimensions are roughly independent
Given that the dimensions all concern the physical size of the candidates I don't see why anyone would expect them to be independent. Someone that is very tall would, I assume, also be quite likely to have a long sleeve length for example.
That is absolutely required by Agile. Agile demands that if something takes more than one Sprint that you must not do it. Any big architecture problem that takes more than one Sprint cannot be done with Agile.
I am by no means an agile expert or advocate but I'm pretty sure agile doesn't say "No work item that would take longer than one sprint can be worked on", rather I think the idea is that any work item that would take longer than one sprint should be broken down into several smaller and more manageable work items.
Can you explain to me how I requested the hundreds of thousands of bytes of port scan and malware scanning that comes in on my modem unrequested?
I never meant to suggest that you did. I was specifically replying to someone that said that "All the ads and most of the autoplay videos are superfluous to me". That's why I qualified my response with "In the context of a webpage".
So if I may turn the question around, in what sense are port / malware scans a webpage?
The problem I have with charging by the byte is a lot of bytes I get are not something I asked for. All the ads and most of the autoplay videos are superfluous to me and I would object to having to pay for something forced on me like that.
In the context of a webpage the ads are data you asked for, from a certain point of view. You requested a web page. Part of that web page's contents is ads (as ad revenue is how the page creator can afford to offer you a webpage in the first place). If you don't want the ads, don't request the webpage.
Not all of the transaction fee goes to the transaction processor. A fraction goes to the lending institution. And it is from this fraction that lending institutions are able to offer cash back or travel rewards to those cardmembers most able to repay.
That sounds highly plausible. Never the less it may still not be worth it from the perspective of the lending institution to give you a higher credit limit if you are regularly not paying them interest. The amount they make from their cut of the transaction fees might not make up for the increased cost of default, especially if , as you say, some portion of those fees goes back to the card holder in the form of cash back or perks.
Also worth noting that sometimes the "bonus reward points" you're getting are being offered "free" by a third party (eg the Air Miles people) strictly so that they can gain access to your purchase history for marketing purposes.
But opportunity costs aren't *real* costs that get posted to a ledger.
Perhaps not but you're still an idiot if you ignore them.
Since they make money from merchants on transaction fees (or do only Visa, MC, AmEx, etc earn the fees?), bumping up your credit limit allows them to earn a larger transaction fee.
As I understand things it's usually the credit card company (VISA, MC, etc) that keeps the transaction fees and the lending institution that keeps the interest, but I suppose it's possible that varies from card to card.
Getting a bigger credit limit only to use it for larger payments just means you cost them more.
This biased source claims the opposite: $3 of every $100 you spend goes to the banking industry. In fact, American Express started out without revolving credit at all, instead requiring cardmembers to pay in full each month and relying on these swipe fees.
As I understand these things (and I could well be wrong) most credit cards involve two different parties, the transaction processor (eg VISA) and the lending institution (eg your bank). The $3 (or whatever) transaction fee goes to the transaction processor for handling the transaction. The interest payments (if any) go to the lending institution (for actually putting up the money that gets loaned out).
So it's true that VISA would probably love for you to have a bigger credit limit as a higher limit means you're more likely to make additional purchases and thus garner them more transaction fees. However the lending institution is the one that decides what your credit limit is because they're the ones that have to front the money and take the risk of default. And since the lending institution makes their money off interest payments, and if you're constantly paying off your entire balance they make no interest, a higher credit limit is just increased risk for them with no benefit.
Getting a bigger credit limit only to use it for larger payments just means you cost them more.
I can't figure out why you'd cost them more. Please clarify.
It's mostly an opportunity cost kind of thing. With every credit card I've ever had you pay no interest as long as you pay off the balance in full by the payment date. This means that, if you always pay off the balance, the bank is effectively giving you an interest free loan from the time you make the purchase until the time you make the payment. The bank could invest that money they loaned you in just about any other investment and make more than 0% return on it. Giving you a bigger credit limit just means they'd be allowing you to take an even bigger interest free loan.
Yep. and while I'm generally against meddling lawyers and all...THIS is one online app I'd like to see crucified by the legal types out there.
To play devil's advocate, what's the legal basis for "crucifying" an app like this? Random people already have the ability to review anyone without their consent. To my knowledge, there's no law that prevents me from starting my own personal website and publishing my personal opinions about you or anyone else I might care to "review".
If what I say is untrue or grounds for harassment there are already laws in place to deal with that (as the GP suggested, that's what libel laws are for), but you would (as far as I understand such things) have to sue me for making the untrue statement and not my web host for enabling me to distribute it.
I don't think this app is a particularly good idea. But I don't think it can be a priori outlawed without falling afoul of free speech considerations.
No, that is not free market labor. Free market labor is anyone who can get a job offer in an area they are allowed to be in can take the job.
<devilsadvocate>So your definition of a free market is one where the government (who explicitly decides who is allowed to be in the country) gets to decide who can and can't participate in trade?</devilsadvocate>
Don't get me wrong, I think labor is a classic example of where a regulated market is better for everyone overall. But it's still a pretty regulated market.
Then why do you consider me to be paying my taxes but you consider no company to have ever done so when it seems like you agree that both I and the company are doing exactly the same thing (to wit building our expenses into the prices we charge)?
Or did I somehow misunderstand what you meant by "you are paying a far larger portion than ANY company...no company has ever paid a penny of "their own" income in taxes"
...no company has ever paid a penny of "their own" income in taxes. Their taxes are baked into their prices. You pay their taxes for them
That argument seems kind of specious to me. I could just as easily argue that I pay my taxes with my employer's money because I've "baked that into the price I charge them for my labor" (aka my salary).
I'm willing to accept a garden with walls if it means I don't have to constantly worry about what unpatched vulnerability is ripe for exploitation on my phone.
You mean like that vulnerability where I can send you a text message and cause your phone to crash?;-)
And it would not matter IF NOT FOR GOVERNMENT REGULATION...because I would have several, if not dozens of competitors to choose amongst.
Tell me, what color is the sky where you live?
No matter what the government does no one is going to have dozens of competitors to chose from because running wires to peoples houses is expensive and it would not be cost effective to do so for a chance at 1/24th of the market (and that's assuming that it were even practical to dig up the streets every 5 minutes to run new cables).
Not to mention that without evil GOVERNMENT REGULATION to force right-of-way land usage it would be almost impossible for anyone to build a comprehensive network because one old coot in the wrong location that refuses to let you run cables over his land could cut off whole segments of the population.
Because some people appreciate the value that YouTube and (some of) the content creators that post there provide and would like a safe and convenient way to kick back a few bucks to ensure that everyone involved is able to pay their rent.
Getting people who know what they are talking about to agree how good a piece of art is usually works best.
And how do we decide which people do and don't "know what they're talking about"? At best that's a circular definition. The criteria you've proposed for judging the quality of art is that some group of people have judged it to be good.
Slashdot Mirror
Threatening to punch anyone they see wearing them in the face isn't bullying; is that what you are trying to say?
Your hyperbole is showing.
That's not exactly hyperbole. Consider some of the comments in this thread alone
Can they capture the full wind-up and followthrough of SnapChat glasses being slugged off someone's face?
Does it come with a disclaimer that says.. "When you get punched in the face because of these glasses, and you will get punched in the face because of these glasses, you cannot hold SnapChat legally responsible because you are an asshat."
If a person wants or expects privacy, I believe that the onus is upon them to take measures to sufficient degree
They do. They beat the crap out of glassholes. Sufficient measures thus taken, effective privacy is restored.
Some people seem to have no trouble advocating physical violence against people merely for openly carrying a camera (which seems silly because if you want to surreptitiously record people there are plenty of ways to do it that are much less obvious). I hope this is just a case of people "being tough on the Internet", but even so, the ferocity of the response seems totally out of proportion.
But could it be that capitalism is practiced a little more ideally in the U.S.?
That, or maybe American tax dodgers just set up their sketchy shell corporations in Delaware or Nevada.
7F21: Three Men And A Comic Book
Bart: Please Dad!
Homer: No!
Bart: Please Dad!
Homer: No!
Bart: Please Dad! (And so on...)
Homer: No!!! Now look son we all know that usually when you bug me like this I give in, so I'm not mad at you for trying. It shows you have been paying attention. But we all know I'm not going to give you 100 dollars! Now are you going to stop bugging me?
Bart: No!
Homer: Are you?
Bart: No!
Homer: Are you?
Bart: No!
Homer: Are you? (And so on...)
Bart: OKAY!!
The problems with taxing muni bonds at the normal progressive tax rates is that wealthy people or institutional investors no longer have any incentive to finance public works...The problem with taxing long-term capital gains at the normal progressive tax rates is that wealthy people or institutional investors no longer have any incentive to invest in ownership stakes in those corporations
Isn't that like saying "The problem with taxing employment income at the normal progressive tax rates is that people will have no incentive to get a job"? Just because you tax one thing at a slightly higher rate than something else (or at a higher rate than has been done historically) doesn't mean it won't still be the better than the alternative options. Would that actually be the case for stocks or municipal bonds? I have no idea. But I'd say it's hardly a foregone conclusion.
4) People who understand what a false dichotomy is.
You take your "I can take care of myself without leeching off others" and mosey on down the road.
I assume that you paved that road yourself and didn't "leech off others" to do it for you ;-)
If there's a 30% chance that someone will fall within the designated "average" range
Why would you assume there's only a 30% chance of that someone would fall within the middle 30 per cent of the range? That would only be true if we assumed for some reason that people would be uniformly distributed throughout the range.
and assuming the dimensions are roughly independent
Given that the dimensions all concern the physical size of the candidates I don't see why anyone would expect them to be independent. Someone that is very tall would, I assume, also be quite likely to have a long sleeve length for example.
That is absolutely required by Agile. Agile demands that if something takes more than one Sprint that you must not do it. Any big architecture problem that takes more than one Sprint cannot be done with Agile.
I am by no means an agile expert or advocate but I'm pretty sure agile doesn't say "No work item that would take longer than one sprint can be worked on", rather I think the idea is that any work item that would take longer than one sprint should be broken down into several smaller and more manageable work items.
Can you explain to me how I requested the hundreds of thousands of bytes of port scan and malware scanning that comes in on my modem unrequested?
I never meant to suggest that you did. I was specifically replying to someone that said that "All the ads and most of the autoplay videos are superfluous to me". That's why I qualified my response with "In the context of a webpage".
So if I may turn the question around, in what sense are port / malware scans a webpage?
The problem I have with charging by the byte is a lot of bytes I get are not something I asked for. All the ads and most of the autoplay videos are superfluous to me and I would object to having to pay for something forced on me like that.
In the context of a webpage the ads are data you asked for, from a certain point of view. You requested a web page. Part of that web page's contents is ads (as ad revenue is how the page creator can afford to offer you a webpage in the first place). If you don't want the ads, don't request the webpage.
Not all of the transaction fee goes to the transaction processor. A fraction goes to the lending institution. And it is from this fraction that lending institutions are able to offer cash back or travel rewards to those cardmembers most able to repay.
That sounds highly plausible. Never the less it may still not be worth it from the perspective of the lending institution to give you a higher credit limit if you are regularly not paying them interest. The amount they make from their cut of the transaction fees might not make up for the increased cost of default, especially if , as you say, some portion of those fees goes back to the card holder in the form of cash back or perks.
Also worth noting that sometimes the "bonus reward points" you're getting are being offered "free" by a third party (eg the Air Miles people) strictly so that they can gain access to your purchase history for marketing purposes.
But opportunity costs aren't *real* costs that get posted to a ledger.
Perhaps not but you're still an idiot if you ignore them.
Since they make money from merchants on transaction fees (or do only Visa, MC, AmEx, etc earn the fees?), bumping up your credit limit allows them to earn a larger transaction fee.
As I understand things it's usually the credit card company (VISA, MC, etc) that keeps the transaction fees and the lending institution that keeps the interest, but I suppose it's possible that varies from card to card.
Getting a bigger credit limit only to use it for larger payments just means you cost them more.
This biased source claims the opposite: $3 of every $100 you spend goes to the banking industry. In fact, American Express started out without revolving credit at all, instead requiring cardmembers to pay in full each month and relying on these swipe fees.
As I understand these things (and I could well be wrong) most credit cards involve two different parties, the transaction processor (eg VISA) and the lending institution (eg your bank). The $3 (or whatever) transaction fee goes to the transaction processor for handling the transaction. The interest payments (if any) go to the lending institution (for actually putting up the money that gets loaned out).
So it's true that VISA would probably love for you to have a bigger credit limit as a higher limit means you're more likely to make additional purchases and thus garner them more transaction fees. However the lending institution is the one that decides what your credit limit is because they're the ones that have to front the money and take the risk of default. And since the lending institution makes their money off interest payments, and if you're constantly paying off your entire balance they make no interest, a higher credit limit is just increased risk for them with no benefit.
Getting a bigger credit limit only to use it for larger payments just means you cost them more.
I can't figure out why you'd cost them more. Please clarify.
It's mostly an opportunity cost kind of thing. With every credit card I've ever had you pay no interest as long as you pay off the balance in full by the payment date. This means that, if you always pay off the balance, the bank is effectively giving you an interest free loan from the time you make the purchase until the time you make the payment. The bank could invest that money they loaned you in just about any other investment and make more than 0% return on it. Giving you a bigger credit limit just means they'd be allowing you to take an even bigger interest free loan.
Yep. and while I'm generally against meddling lawyers and all...THIS is one online app I'd like to see crucified by the legal types out there.
To play devil's advocate, what's the legal basis for "crucifying" an app like this? Random people already have the ability to review anyone without their consent. To my knowledge, there's no law that prevents me from starting my own personal website and publishing my personal opinions about you or anyone else I might care to "review".
If what I say is untrue or grounds for harassment there are already laws in place to deal with that (as the GP suggested, that's what libel laws are for), but you would (as far as I understand such things) have to sue me for making the untrue statement and not my web host for enabling me to distribute it.
I don't think this app is a particularly good idea. But I don't think it can be a priori outlawed without falling afoul of free speech considerations.
No, that is not free market labor. Free market labor is anyone who can get a job offer in an area they are allowed to be in can take the job.
<devilsadvocate>So your definition of a free market is one where the government (who explicitly decides who is allowed to be in the country) gets to decide who can and can't participate in trade?</devilsadvocate>
Don't get me wrong, I think labor is a classic example of where a regulated market is better for everyone overall. But it's still a pretty regulated market.
This is exactly what happens
Then why do you consider me to be paying my taxes but you consider no company to have ever done so when it seems like you agree that both I and the company are doing exactly the same thing (to wit building our expenses into the prices we charge)?
Or did I somehow misunderstand what you meant by "you are paying a far larger portion than ANY company...no company has ever paid a penny of "their own" income in taxes"
That's because you're dumb
Well then I yield to your obviously superior intellect and debating skills oh wise Anonymous Coward.
...no company has ever paid a penny of "their own" income in taxes. Their taxes are baked into their prices. You pay their taxes for them
That argument seems kind of specious to me. I could just as easily argue that I pay my taxes with my employer's money because I've "baked that into the price I charge them for my labor" (aka my salary).
I think his point was that you'd have physical access to it, yknow, to buy physical bread and milk.
Only if you kept it in a big pile in your basement, which would have its own set of security and logistical problems.
If on the other hand you keep you gold/silver in the vault of a bank that is now shut down for the week then you're right back to where you are now.
I'm willing to accept a garden with walls if it means I don't have to constantly worry about what unpatched vulnerability is ripe for exploitation on my phone.
You mean like that vulnerability where I can send you a text message and cause your phone to crash? ;-)
And it would not matter IF NOT FOR GOVERNMENT REGULATION...because I would have several, if not dozens of competitors to choose amongst.
Tell me, what color is the sky where you live?
No matter what the government does no one is going to have dozens of competitors to chose from because running wires to peoples houses is expensive and it would not be cost effective to do so for a chance at 1/24th of the market (and that's assuming that it were even practical to dig up the streets every 5 minutes to run new cables).
Not to mention that without evil GOVERNMENT REGULATION to force right-of-way land usage it would be almost impossible for anyone to build a comprehensive network because one old coot in the wrong location that refuses to let you run cables over his land could cut off whole segments of the population.
How about doing this ONLY when the person is using a mobile device?
According to TFA (I know, I know, who reads the article)
The change will affect mobile searches in all languages worldwide
[Have they not heard ] of AdBlock?
Yes we have.
Why would anyone pay for this?
Because some people appreciate the value that YouTube and (some of) the content creators that post there provide and would like a safe and convenient way to kick back a few bucks to ensure that everyone involved is able to pay their rent.
Getting people who know what they are talking about to agree how good a piece of art is usually works best.
And how do we decide which people do and don't "know what they're talking about"? At best that's a circular definition. The criteria you've proposed for judging the quality of art is that some group of people have judged it to be good.