...You do realize Obama wasn't President until January 2009, right? He had nothing to do with what happened in 2008 (aside from his role as 1 senator out of 100).
I used to work there. It's not a timer (unless they changed it since I left, but I highly doubt it, since they use the same system to track internal operating metrics for planning staffing patterns). They are entering info every step of the way, except 'entering' info mostly means hitting the enter key on the computer at that station. One station at the make line when it goes in the over, one when it comes out of the oven and gets boxed, one when it goes out the door with the driver
All of the scenarios listed in the summary are basic errors by employees in the restaurant's workflow. Or, in some cases, fraud by managers trying to game their times to qualify for bonuses.
Personally, I am pretty sure that if you use a service like this your traffic is almost certain to be collected by the government (as they would probably capture a lot of juicy material to hold over people). So I've always seen it as a choice as to whole you want knowing what you do with your connection - an ISP or the government. I know which I trust less (yes, even over Comcast).
You are daft if you still don't think the NSA is recording everything you do. They may not look at it, but they have it.
Tbf, socialist fire departments haven't been saving them forever.
Back in "the good ol' days" when America was still great, two competing entrepeneurs would show up at your burning house and haggle with you while your house burned. If you didn't pay quick enough, they'd just loot the ruins and be on their way.
No, you're thinking of deductions. Credits are exactly what the article says. Credits are rare. Refundable credits (credits that pay even if greater than your tax burden) are even more rare. Deductions are common.
Article is about a regular, non-refundable tax credit. Not a deduction.
You are inventing a problem where none exists. While you're whinging about "should" and "should not" the rest of us will be over here in reality.
Reality: It doesn't matter who "pays" the liability because the owner of the car pays it anyway. The cost is passed on. Since the system we have already does this, why change it?
You need legislation to prevent that kind of liability, and it will save many, many lives. It just won't save everyone.
No you don't. You just need insurance and actuaries to calculate and charge for the risks--which is exactly how we handle car accident deaths already.
Nothing new is needed to deal with self-driving car liabilities. It's a solved problem. I will never understand why people cling to this idea that it's not.
Congrats. You're Bear Grylls and NEWSFLASH: this conversation is not about you and your outlier behavior. They're talking about the majority of SUV owners who do not use them like that.
Speaking of outliers, the NSA has almost certainly flagged you as a potential Kazinsky-type terrorist.
If there is no added value why do people pay then?
Are you naturally this obtuse, or do you practice at it?
They pay because the content has value--NONE OF WHICH IS ADDED BY ELSEVIER.
Elsevier engages in rent-seeking by locking up the value and then adding nothing to it.
This isn't complicated. There's a reason all of Elsevier's customers hate them. It's the same reason Comcast's customers hate them too--Comcast DOESN'T ADD VALUE to the content they deliver, which they also do not produce. In fact, they substantially reduce the value of the content they deliver with the restrictions they place on it.
Elsevier is the science-publishing equivalent of Comcast. They are middle men who use a legally enforced monopoly to extract money from both producers of research and users of it while giving both sides nothing of value.
I'm sad to see traditional publishers who pay for reporters and columnists be undermined by aggregators that leach content and don't do much
And the award for most ignorant post in the thread goes to......
Elsevier IS an aggregator that leaches content and doesn't do much--they don't produce ANYTHING. They've "acquired" copy rights on other people's research data by paying researchers NOTHING except the "prestige" of peer review (which they also don't do or pay for--they get the same researchers to do it for them for free.
They are the epitome of a leech. And the research community HATES them, but can't avoid them for a variety of institutional reasons (see also: publish or perish).
Slashdot Mirror
...You do realize Obama wasn't President until January 2009, right? He had nothing to do with what happened in 2008 (aside from his role as 1 senator out of 100).
That's the real news here. Who browses LinkedIn for anything other than employer/employee hunting?
I used to work there. It's not a timer (unless they changed it since I left, but I highly doubt it, since they use the same system to track internal operating metrics for planning staffing patterns). They are entering info every step of the way, except 'entering' info mostly means hitting the enter key on the computer at that station. One station at the make line when it goes in the over, one when it comes out of the oven and gets boxed, one when it goes out the door with the driver
All of the scenarios listed in the summary are basic errors by employees in the restaurant's workflow. Or, in some cases, fraud by managers trying to game their times to qualify for bonuses.
Way to butcher that joke.
Personally, I am pretty sure that if you use a service like this your traffic is almost certain to be collected by the government (as they would probably capture a lot of juicy material to hold over people). So I've always seen it as a choice as to whole you want knowing what you do with your connection - an ISP or the government. I know which I trust less (yes, even over Comcast).
You are daft if you still don't think the NSA is recording everything you do. They may not look at it, but they have it.
It's whatever the dipshit in front of you can (mis)remember from the manual at that exact moment.
That was the angriest "I hate you and I agree" post I've ever read.
Dude, chill out. Have a lood or something.
I can't believe I'm defending them from anything, but if there's one thing terrorists are not, it's stupid.
I think both the underwear and shoe bombers were clearly not all there.
The Tsarnaev brothers? No, not stupid. And notice, they didn't bother trying to get through airport security.
...very few cultures are like that NOW,
Um, you may be more than a little out of touch with the world outside your mom's basement.
and only one of them has an organized terrorist recruiting and brainwashing machine and has openly declared war on Europeans and Americans.
I can think of at least two without really trying...
And if we spent all that money destroying them instead of funding this debacle we probably we would be done by now.
I know the irony of this escapes you, but it made me laugh.
Tbf, socialist fire departments haven't been saving them forever.
Back in "the good ol' days" when America was still great, two competing entrepeneurs would show up at your burning house and haggle with you while your house burned. If you didn't pay quick enough, they'd just loot the ruins and be on their way.
No, you're thinking of deductions. Credits are exactly what the article says. Credits are rare. Refundable credits (credits that pay even if greater than your tax burden) are even more rare. Deductions are common.
Article is about a regular, non-refundable tax credit. Not a deduction.
Do they even have source code? I thought it was all chewing gum, baling wire, and gerbils....
You are inventing a problem where none exists. While you're whinging about "should" and "should not" the rest of us will be over here in reality.
Reality: It doesn't matter who "pays" the liability because the owner of the car pays it anyway. The cost is passed on. Since the system we have already does this, why change it?
You need insurance as the owner of the car.
No different than a business owner needs insurance on their company cars, even if they're not driving it.
THIS IS NOT NEW.
You need legislation to prevent that kind of liability, and it will save many, many lives. It just won't save everyone.
No you don't. You just need insurance and actuaries to calculate and charge for the risks--which is exactly how we handle car accident deaths already.
Nothing new is needed to deal with self-driving car liabilities. It's a solved problem. I will never understand why people cling to this idea that it's not.
In other words, Americans wouldn't know what real freedom is even if they got cock slapped by it.
You have to be rather dense to think a civil trial is a prosecution, though.
I think he means Steven Tyler's daughter. It's an easy enough mistake.
The world is littered with similar ghost towns.
In the old days we just called those "ancient Roman ruins.'
He must be new here.
He's from Uranus you insensitive clod!
What in the sam hell are you talking about? (genuine question)
Congrats. You're Bear Grylls and NEWSFLASH: this conversation is not about you and your outlier behavior. They're talking about the majority of SUV owners who do not use them like that.
Speaking of outliers, the NSA has almost certainly flagged you as a potential Kazinsky-type terrorist.
If there is no added value why do people pay then?
Are you naturally this obtuse, or do you practice at it?
They pay because the content has value--NONE OF WHICH IS ADDED BY ELSEVIER.
Elsevier engages in rent-seeking by locking up the value and then adding nothing to it.
This isn't complicated. There's a reason all of Elsevier's customers hate them. It's the same reason Comcast's customers hate them too--Comcast DOESN'T ADD VALUE to the content they deliver, which they also do not produce. In fact, they substantially reduce the value of the content they deliver with the restrictions they place on it.
Elsevier is the science-publishing equivalent of Comcast. They are middle men who use a legally enforced monopoly to extract money from both producers of research and users of it while giving both sides nothing of value.
I'm sad to see traditional publishers who pay for reporters and columnists be undermined by aggregators that leach content and don't do much
And the award for most ignorant post in the thread goes to......
Elsevier IS an aggregator that leaches content and doesn't do much--they don't produce ANYTHING. They've "acquired" copy rights on other people's research data by paying researchers NOTHING except the "prestige" of peer review (which they also don't do or pay for--they get the same researchers to do it for them for free.
They are the epitome of a leech. And the research community HATES them, but can't avoid them for a variety of institutional reasons (see also: publish or perish).