Because clearly he has to have a fully worked out business model for his point to be valid:P
An application that serves adverts and/or allows a small subscription fee to access and play a music catalogue is hardly some mystical and hard to produce product. So here's what could happen: A group of 20 Indie bands and artists get together and form a partnership with a entrepreneur. The entrepreneur agrees to found a company owned by the bands, which will be obligated to give 10% of profits to the entrepreneur until it has paid him $1,000,000 (or some other agreed fee). The entrepreneur would get the app developed and released. The firm would cover all costs of operation and then profits would be shared to the groups based on how popular their content was (minus initial 10% cut until the fee is paid off). Chances are if the entrepreneur was doing a good job the 'board' (groups who own this company) would want to keep him on as the CEO and pay him properly or potentially make him a partial owner (that would be there choice).
If a new band wanted to join then it could by agreeing to pay 10% of it's first $50k profits *based on same amount as the initial bands were signed up for). Once the first $50k was paid they would become another 'owner' of the business with influence over how the business is run.
Somehow, by fighting for the 'rights' of creative types to be rent seekers, you have managed to convince me that the concept of ownership separated from effort is flawed.
Then you're a fool who has to lurch to absurdly extreme fictional examples as justification for their position. Your stated position is that ownership should be defined by effort. So people can't own a house unless they build it themselves; but wait, it's even more stupid than that because I couldn't own the bricks for my house unless I baked them myself. So who owns the house I live in: Thousands of people from the guy who mined the metal used to make the nails, to the architect who designed it via the driver who delivered the lumber?
I know the feeling;) that said, a sector like drones is already rapidly advancing. Just look at the drone tech from 5 years ago vs the kind of things available now. You can buy something to play about with for fun that couldn't have been built at any cost less than a decade ago.
Firstly you don't need studies, we're talking about actual government spending that will be available in budgets and accounts; it doesn't require a study. Secondly, who gives a fuck why they receive more in federal money than they pay into the federal government other than fanboys trying to find an excuse for why it isn't blatantly hypocritical for them to claim democrats are leeching all the money.
That said, more seriously, a red state will still include some blue voters and vice versa. It's possible that if you took blue states and modified earnings to the average blue voter then they wouldn't be net contributors to the federal budget any more; I'm not saying that is the case, just that it's possible...
Funny as that is as a joke, for the sake of clarity to those who don't know: Paperwork showing where an animal has been kept etc is often referred to as the animals 'passport' in the UK. It isn't a passport by the common definition. The reason animals without passports might be put down is that it means we can't prove origin, have traceability, ensure they have been treated properly etc.
But why should we try to make a law about chimpanzees screwing out in the bush?
A very good question. The issue is that this article is about an attempt to define these chimps as 'legal persons' to grant them the protections and rights that brings. What I wonder is, has enough thought gone into handling the responsibilities and obligations that come with being a 'legal person' such as being subject to the law? Rape, murder, theft etc are all common within the animal kingdom and no less so the more cognitively advanced members such as Apes and Dolphins.
I have no issue with people pushing for greater rights for animals. I strongly agree with the idea of defining the distress we cause animals so that we can weigh up the pros and cons. Defining Apes as persons is a dumb way to try and short-cut this process.
Even though your post was as informative as a typical AC griper I'll give you the short version on the rest as you appear to be too narrow minded to do it yourself.
A delivery range of 10-15km would be plenty for most non-rural areas. It would be far more convenient for me to have the package turn up at my door than have to go and get it.
Octocopter isn't cutting edge today and won't near cutting edge in 4-5 years. It's not exactly unlikely that handling in moderate winds will be something that improves.
The last one is most stupid of all. Vans crash, parcels get damaged in transit, drivers pick the wrong address and the list goes on. If a drone replaced the equivalent of 8 man hours and driving hours a day then Amazon won't give a fuck if they lost them on average every month because the saving would be huge. I don't care if the first drone delivering my dvd blows up in mid-air as long as the 2nd one bringing the replacement is fast. Even more stupid is the ignorance of progress needed to be unable to imagine the idea that 5 years of research and development isn't going to lead to monumental improvements in this area.
No shit sherlock. That would be a problem regardless of whether drones are being used to deliver packages. I'm sure some people would allow little things like, the rest of a post to guide their thinking but it's good to see you don't let that burden you; but for reference, if you had, the bit about drones being 'viably regulated' may have cramped your style a bit.
Just because you're self-opinionated enough to think you know something and yet unimaginative enough to not be able to think of anything weighing 2kg or less worth delivering by drone doesn't mean things don't exist.
The last 10+ things I have ordered from Amazon or Ebay are all well below 2kg. The majority of things I buy from them are below 2kg: Books, CDs, DVDs, Games, tablet case, address book, aftershave, diary, USB-Micro USB cable, Radiator keys, plug converter etc. It turns out that bricks aren't the only thing you can order from online stores.
Roughly as long as it takes for people to start jacking UPS vans when the driver gets out to put the parcel on the porch... Any drone that is going to have permission to do this is going to have tracking and cameras. Some chumps will shoot them or break them but the risk and reward balance is pretty obviously not going to encourage much of it.
There have been documented cases of people following UPS etc vans and collecting the things they drop off on porches. Given that the person delivering the package can't magically get it inside the house unless it fits through the letterbox or I'm there their security isn't exactly amazing. A drone could drop the parcel in my rear garden without me having to leave my gate unlocked; furthermore it wouldn't be hard to have some kind of coded access box for them to use, or on a simpler level just deliver when they know I'm home so I can accept the item.
I honestly think you'd see a decimation of manual delivery jobs in the UK within less than 2 years of drone style delivery being legalised and viably regulated. It'll be cheaper, faster and offer more convenient delivery times without huge fees; there's basically nothing that manual delivery offers to remotely make up for that.
If you say when it tells you that it can install a bitcoin miner than it isn't running an unauthorised miner. We can argue all day about the idea that EULAs should mean anything, and we'd probably agree, but the EULA tells users this is what they'll do so it's not unauthorised.
I'm sure the people offering programs with a bitcoin miner would be perfectly happy to provide a version without a miner that costs $1 or something equally nominal (it's not like a typical home pc is getting much from mining these days anyway). Unfortunately people are tight and stupid. They'll pirate the paid for version rather than pay a $1 or they'll find a 'free' alternative instead (which includes a miner).
Way to completely misconstrue a point and come across like an ass doing it.
If you don't love the person you marry enough that you wouldn't end their suffering (if you believe it is in line with their wishes) because the state told you that you weren't allowed to and you'd be punished if you did then you're either a coward or fucked it up.
He specifically said he is ok with people having a different opinion. The people who made those comments regarding are people actively voting for, or legislating for, the laws that led to his father's, and thousands of others, suffering.
If someone's mother, brother, daughter etc was held and tortured for decades before being killed would you think it was 'wrong' for them to wish the person who ordered it suffered? I would think that was an entirely normal response.
He didn't threaten anything. A politician who has voted against euthanasia has voted to force some people who want to die to suffer an incredibly degrading and sometimes inconceivably painful slow death which could easily be avoided. They've taken action to make that happen. Scott stating that he would enjoy killing someone who does that is nothing by comparison.
He had to stand by and watch his father suffer because other people who didn't know his father decided that not only didn't he have the right to help him but that doctors are legally obliged to keep the suffering going for as long as possible. It's sick and it's wrong on a level that is hard to match.
Depends where you are I suppose. Are you black and look like you have too much money for someone of 'your kind'? Then you're probably concealing drugs. An upstanding white congressman *cough* *cough*? Carry on about your day sir, sorry to inconvenience you.
You're right, in a sense. In this case that's what happened. However if that is evidence enough to 'prove' the driver knew it was being used to conceal a controlled substance then we don't know whether for example: being found to have trace amounts of a drug in your blood stream would be enough, having been at a party where someone bought or used a drug, having a friend who got busted for dealing cocaine etc.
If the concealed compartment had been analysed and residues of a controlled substance coated it that's one thing. I'm not entirely sure that your car smelling strongly of cannabis should be enough to prosecute you.
This or similar devices will allow you to put a 'whitelist' on your phone of numbers you accept and all other numbers are diverted to voicemail. Most scams won't waste time leaving voicemails so you never even know they've phoned and every time you get a message from a legit number you can call back and/or add them to your white list.
The loss of effective antibiotics is a genuinely 'catastrophic global threat'; terrorism is a largely imaginary risk for most people with considerably less chance of negatively affecting their life than going near a road. If terrorism was a single fire ant on your leg then widespread drug resistant bacterias would be a pissed off Hippo stomping you into the ground.
Do we blame politicians for not treating this as important and instead pissing billions away on 'the war on terror' or do we blame ourselves for being so ignorant that we (on average) don't care about this major issue but throw our support behind whoever promises to spend most on protecting us from often imaginary bogeymen.
People sent telegrams before email, sent letters before phones and I bet you whined about change over the fence to anyone who'd listen before the internet came into your life and allowed you to disseminate your disdain for change more widely. "We managed before" has got to be one of the stupidest arguments for anything in existence.
I remember back in the Stone Age, we had these things called "maps" that we could use to determine a route to take, and then we could write down or memorize the turns to make. Believe it or not, we still have this technology.
No; back in the stone age they had stars, and I'd give about as much of a damn about the opinion of a caveman pointing out that they still exist as someone who thinks his ability to use a map is in some way merit worthy. You are old fashioned, I really don't care if you want to think of that as a strength and I'll bet that I'm not the only GPS user who doesn't care what self declared 'old fashioned' navigators think.
Slashdot Mirror
Because clearly he has to have a fully worked out business model for his point to be valid :P
An application that serves adverts and/or allows a small subscription fee to access and play a music catalogue is hardly some mystical and hard to produce product. So here's what could happen: A group of 20 Indie bands and artists get together and form a partnership with a entrepreneur. The entrepreneur agrees to found a company owned by the bands, which will be obligated to give 10% of profits to the entrepreneur until it has paid him $1,000,000 (or some other agreed fee). The entrepreneur would get the app developed and released. The firm would cover all costs of operation and then profits would be shared to the groups based on how popular their content was (minus initial 10% cut until the fee is paid off). Chances are if the entrepreneur was doing a good job the 'board' (groups who own this company) would want to keep him on as the CEO and pay him properly or potentially make him a partial owner (that would be there choice).
If a new band wanted to join then it could by agreeing to pay 10% of it's first $50k profits *based on same amount as the initial bands were signed up for). Once the first $50k was paid they would become another 'owner' of the business with influence over how the business is run.
Then you're a fool who has to lurch to absurdly extreme fictional examples as justification for their position. Your stated position is that ownership should be defined by effort. So people can't own a house unless they build it themselves; but wait, it's even more stupid than that because I couldn't own the bricks for my house unless I baked them myself. So who owns the house I live in: Thousands of people from the guy who mined the metal used to make the nails, to the architect who designed it via the driver who delivered the lumber?
I know the feeling ;) that said, a sector like drones is already rapidly advancing. Just look at the drone tech from 5 years ago vs the kind of things available now. You can buy something to play about with for fun that couldn't have been built at any cost less than a decade ago.
Firstly you don't need studies, we're talking about actual government spending that will be available in budgets and accounts; it doesn't require a study. Secondly, who gives a fuck why they receive more in federal money than they pay into the federal government other than fanboys trying to find an excuse for why it isn't blatantly hypocritical for them to claim democrats are leeching all the money.
Crioca 1 : 0 reboot246
That said, more seriously, a red state will still include some blue voters and vice versa. It's possible that if you took blue states and modified earnings to the average blue voter then they wouldn't be net contributors to the federal budget any more; I'm not saying that is the case, just that it's possible...
To be fair, if no one goes anywhere then no one is left behind ;)
Funny as that is as a joke, for the sake of clarity to those who don't know: Paperwork showing where an animal has been kept etc is often referred to as the animals 'passport' in the UK. It isn't a passport by the common definition. The reason animals without passports might be put down is that it means we can't prove origin, have traceability, ensure they have been treated properly etc.
A very good question. The issue is that this article is about an attempt to define these chimps as 'legal persons' to grant them the protections and rights that brings. What I wonder is, has enough thought gone into handling the responsibilities and obligations that come with being a 'legal person' such as being subject to the law? Rape, murder, theft etc are all common within the animal kingdom and no less so the more cognitively advanced members such as Apes and Dolphins.
I have no issue with people pushing for greater rights for animals. I strongly agree with the idea of defining the distress we cause animals so that we can weigh up the pros and cons. Defining Apes as persons is a dumb way to try and short-cut this process.
Even though your post was as informative as a typical AC griper I'll give you the short version on the rest as you appear to be too narrow minded to do it yourself.
A delivery range of 10-15km would be plenty for most non-rural areas. It would be far more convenient for me to have the package turn up at my door than have to go and get it.
Octocopter isn't cutting edge today and won't near cutting edge in 4-5 years. It's not exactly unlikely that handling in moderate winds will be something that improves.
The last one is most stupid of all. Vans crash, parcels get damaged in transit, drivers pick the wrong address and the list goes on. If a drone replaced the equivalent of 8 man hours and driving hours a day then Amazon won't give a fuck if they lost them on average every month because the saving would be huge. I don't care if the first drone delivering my dvd blows up in mid-air as long as the 2nd one bringing the replacement is fast. Even more stupid is the ignorance of progress needed to be unable to imagine the idea that 5 years of research and development isn't going to lead to monumental improvements in this area.
No shit sherlock. That would be a problem regardless of whether drones are being used to deliver packages. I'm sure some people would allow little things like, the rest of a post to guide their thinking but it's good to see you don't let that burden you; but for reference, if you had, the bit about drones being 'viably regulated' may have cramped your style a bit.
Just because you're self-opinionated enough to think you know something and yet unimaginative enough to not be able to think of anything weighing 2kg or less worth delivering by drone doesn't mean things don't exist.
The last 10+ things I have ordered from Amazon or Ebay are all well below 2kg. The majority of things I buy from them are below 2kg: Books, CDs, DVDs, Games, tablet case, address book, aftershave, diary, USB-Micro USB cable, Radiator keys, plug converter etc. It turns out that bricks aren't the only thing you can order from online stores.
Roughly as long as it takes for people to start jacking UPS vans when the driver gets out to put the parcel on the porch... Any drone that is going to have permission to do this is going to have tracking and cameras. Some chumps will shoot them or break them but the risk and reward balance is pretty obviously not going to encourage much of it.
There have been documented cases of people following UPS etc vans and collecting the things they drop off on porches. Given that the person delivering the package can't magically get it inside the house unless it fits through the letterbox or I'm there their security isn't exactly amazing. A drone could drop the parcel in my rear garden without me having to leave my gate unlocked; furthermore it wouldn't be hard to have some kind of coded access box for them to use, or on a simpler level just deliver when they know I'm home so I can accept the item.
I honestly think you'd see a decimation of manual delivery jobs in the UK within less than 2 years of drone style delivery being legalised and viably regulated. It'll be cheaper, faster and offer more convenient delivery times without huge fees; there's basically nothing that manual delivery offers to remotely make up for that.
If you say when it tells you that it can install a bitcoin miner than it isn't running an unauthorised miner. We can argue all day about the idea that EULAs should mean anything, and we'd probably agree, but the EULA tells users this is what they'll do so it's not unauthorised.
I'm sure the people offering programs with a bitcoin miner would be perfectly happy to provide a version without a miner that costs $1 or something equally nominal (it's not like a typical home pc is getting much from mining these days anyway). Unfortunately people are tight and stupid. They'll pirate the paid for version rather than pay a $1 or they'll find a 'free' alternative instead (which includes a miner).
Way to completely misconstrue a point and come across like an ass doing it.
If you don't love the person you marry enough that you wouldn't end their suffering (if you believe it is in line with their wishes) because the state told you that you weren't allowed to and you'd be punished if you did then you're either a coward or fucked it up.
He specifically said he is ok with people having a different opinion. The people who made those comments regarding are people actively voting for, or legislating for, the laws that led to his father's, and thousands of others, suffering.
If someone's mother, brother, daughter etc was held and tortured for decades before being killed would you think it was 'wrong' for them to wish the person who ordered it suffered? I would think that was an entirely normal response.
He didn't threaten anything. A politician who has voted against euthanasia has voted to force some people who want to die to suffer an incredibly degrading and sometimes inconceivably painful slow death which could easily be avoided. They've taken action to make that happen. Scott stating that he would enjoy killing someone who does that is nothing by comparison.
He had to stand by and watch his father suffer because other people who didn't know his father decided that not only didn't he have the right to help him but that doctors are legally obliged to keep the suffering going for as long as possible. It's sick and it's wrong on a level that is hard to match.
And calling American Football that is silly because it's mostly played with hands. So. Fucking. What. It's still what people call it so move on ;)
Depends where you are I suppose. Are you black and look like you have too much money for someone of 'your kind'? Then you're probably concealing drugs. An upstanding white congressman *cough* *cough*? Carry on about your day sir, sorry to inconvenience you.
You're right, in a sense. In this case that's what happened. However if that is evidence enough to 'prove' the driver knew it was being used to conceal a controlled substance then we don't know whether for example: being found to have trace amounts of a drug in your blood stream would be enough, having been at a party where someone bought or used a drug, having a friend who got busted for dealing cocaine etc.
If the concealed compartment had been analysed and residues of a controlled substance coated it that's one thing. I'm not entirely sure that your car smelling strongly of cannabis should be enough to prosecute you.
Shit. They have the Daily Mail in California too? I thought only us Brits had to put up with it
http://www.privacycorps.com/products/?id=20
This or similar devices will allow you to put a 'whitelist' on your phone of numbers you accept and all other numbers are diverted to voicemail. Most scams won't waste time leaving voicemails so you never even know they've phoned and every time you get a message from a legit number you can call back and/or add them to your white list.
The loss of effective antibiotics is a genuinely 'catastrophic global threat'; terrorism is a largely imaginary risk for most people with considerably less chance of negatively affecting their life than going near a road. If terrorism was a single fire ant on your leg then widespread drug resistant bacterias would be a pissed off Hippo stomping you into the ground.
Do we blame politicians for not treating this as important and instead pissing billions away on 'the war on terror' or do we blame ourselves for being so ignorant that we (on average) don't care about this major issue but throw our support behind whoever promises to spend most on protecting us from often imaginary bogeymen.
People sent telegrams before email, sent letters before phones and I bet you whined about change over the fence to anyone who'd listen before the internet came into your life and allowed you to disseminate your disdain for change more widely. "We managed before" has got to be one of the stupidest arguments for anything in existence.
No; back in the stone age they had stars, and I'd give about as much of a damn about the opinion of a caveman pointing out that they still exist as someone who thinks his ability to use a map is in some way merit worthy. You are old fashioned, I really don't care if you want to think of that as a strength and I'll bet that I'm not the only GPS user who doesn't care what self declared 'old fashioned' navigators think.