The obvious sequel to this is for people who find these terms offensive to trademark them preemptively.
What you have to keep in mind is that a trademark is not a legal right to use a term-- it is a legal right to sue others to prevent them from using it.
It's not entirely clear to me that the USPS actually does make money on delivering junk mail. There is a lot of it-- but they don't get paid much for delivering it. First class mail makes money for them. I'm not at all sure whether junk mail does or not.
Keeping the cost of junk mail low, of course, is driven by the lobbying of the junk mail industry. I think we need to blame congress for that
However, what this says is maybe benefits should not be part of your job at all so that companies don't have to deal with this stuff and we can deal with it at a societal level where that is cheaper and more effective.
Hmm-- interesting idea. We could have a government-mandated plan that provides some sort of minimum benefits, which everybody pays into as part of their job, and that could be like a "safety net" applying to all employees, so they're not destitute even if their savings get drained and their company goes bankrupt. And then, companies could also offer benefits beyond this minimum, a "retirement plan," if you will, so people who worked for that company would have an income that's more than that safety-net minimum when they retire. A two-layer plan. The minimum plan would just be be security, be part of the overall social structure.
Say, we could even call it that: "social security." Good name!
Employees of private corporations don't have independent pension funds in the US?
They may or may not. There are a variety of different types of pension plans in the U.S.
The old fashioned pension plan was simply that the company would pay a pension to the retired workers. But this type of pension plan is becoming obsolete, partly because the failure of several large corporations has made it clear that you can't necessarily count on the large corporation continuing to pay the pensions if they go bankrupt.
In short, no. The USPS depends on a certain percentage of spam to exist. They also wouldn't exist without the deal to take small packages from UPS and FedEx. Without a federally-granted monopoly on delivering to your mailbox, the USPS would have gone away already, and good riddance.
You just told me that the USPS delivers to people to whom UPS and FedEx don't deliver.
What? No, no I did not,
Actually, you did, and you repeated it again in your comment. But, you're right: turns out that you apparently didn't actually know that the reason that UPS and FedEX use the US post office to deliver is because it's cheaper for them.
and your lack of reading comprehension is appalling. UPS and FedEx did deliver to those addresses, and they still do, but they are now required to hand the majority of their small packages off to the USPS.
They are "required" to do so because they have a contract to do so. They have a contract to do so because it's cheaper. It's cheaper because the USPS is required to do deliveries.
This handoff typically adds a day on to delivery times, so it harms the customer directly even in cases where the package is subsequently delivered competently.
It may "harm the customer," but UPS and FedEX do it because it is cheaper.
You and I are at odds. I see anonymous posting as the soul of slashdot. Sure some people post anonymously just to troll, but others have very good reasons to remain anonymous.
Unfortunately the flood of sewage spilling from trolls and one-issue-idiots have completely discredited the few with purported "very good reasons" to remain anonymous.
Amazon has been using their own contractors to deliver packages in my area for a while now. From a customer's perspective, my packages arrive exactly within the timeframe as specified by Amazon.
Their technique there is to use their own contractors to deliver to places that are easy to get to, and the USPS to deliver to the ones that are hard to get to.
That business "opportunity to improve" relies on the U.S. Post office to work.
In short, no. The USPS depends on a certain percentage of spam to exist. They also wouldn't exist without the deal to take small packages from UPS and FedEx. Without a federally-granted monopoly on delivering to your mailbox, the USPS would have gone away already, and good riddance.
You just told me that the USPS delivers to people to whom UPS and FedEx don't deliver.
I think that's a valuable service, actually.
Basically, your post says that UPS and FedEx take their profit by delivering to the easy customers, and they use the post office to deliver to the hard ones.
Perhaps you should, I dunno, read the fucking report he linked?
Have you read it? Have you even looked at it?
Telling me that "somewhere" in a hundred-page document there is one or more statements that were inaccurate-- but not stating which statements, or where in the document they are stated--is not an example of "specifically stating what is inaccurate."
I just read it again, though and I will repeat: what specifically was inaccurate, and how and when was it shown not to be justified?
My question-- the part you failed to quote--said "who said it, when, what exactly did they say, and in what way was it shown not to be justified?"
You didn't answer my question. You asserted that the IPCC synthesis report was "alarmism" with "numerous inaccurate statements," but didn't point out a single inaccurate statement.
So, I repeat: what specifically was inaccurate, and how and when was it shown not to be justified?
Much past climate alarmism was not justified, and now that credibility has been eroded, many people are no longer listening.
While I'm not a fan of "alarmism," I'd be interested in seeing your citation for "much past climate alarmism was not justified." Specifically what "past climate alarmism" are you referring to, who said it, when, what exactly did they say, and in what way was it shown not to be justified?
And, show me some actual sources, please. I'd like to see something more than just parroting some blog saying "past climate alarmism wasn't justified."
I believe that you may be missing the sarcasm in the original post. That's easy to miss, since attempted irony is usually indistinguishable from cluelessness on slashdot posts.
I thought Battlefield Earth was bad enough. That cured me of wanting to read anything else by him.
Try some of his stuff from the '40s, before he did the Dianetics and Scientology thing. Good pulp adventure.
Most of the Mission Earth series were published after his death, which, of course, doesn't mean that he couldn't have written them. My bet is that he outlined the stories and someone else actually wrote them.
Word from people who knew him was that he typed exceptionally quickly, and he wrote as fast as he typed-- he was not the kind of writer who stares at the wall for fifteen minutes and then writes one sentence. I don't see any reason to think he didn't write them-- seems consistent with his style. (The suggestion earlier that he wrote the first seven books but somebody else completed the last three after his death is interesting, though-- I hadn't heard that suggested before.)
Try applying to any New England school right now. If you're not brown or black, you'll dropped to the bottom of the list.
I can't verify that statement using statistics. Here's the black enrollment at Ivy league universities: http://www.jbhe.com/features/6... (for reference, blacks compose 12.3% of the population of America)
and get over it. Whenever a city/state tries to mandate something that is the most common current cause of something bad it fails and just limits our freedoms more. In Mass we made it illegal to text while driving; why? well obviously because the odds of driving poorly are much higher while texting - which is very true; however just pull over people that are driving poorly. There is already a law for that.
This is very easy to do: the signal that a driver is driving poorly is that they crash into things. So, just give tickets to the people who crash into things.
Oh, wait, you'd like to solve the problem before the drivers crash and kill people? Oops, sorry, that's harder.
I've not been able to track down to verify, but it appeared this agreement in Paris, would have us in the US paying more "tax"...carbon tax, etc on all sorts of things.
Nope. The Paris agreement commits each nation "to put forward their best efforts." That's it.
Trolls, in that sense, didn't particularly believe in what they posted
Woa-woah! How does that follow from the definition you've declared? Why does my seeking to draw a response — or even start a flamewar — automatically mean, I do not believe in what I'm saying?
Well, if they believe what they're posting, they are arguing, not trolling. Possibly they are arguing in a way that is obnoxious, ignorant, stupid, deliberately provocative, and using too many ALL CAPS phrases for emphasis... but a real troll-- the old-fashioned kind-- isn't invested in any side of the argument, they only want to make the argument happen.
Verbally slapping someone around is, sometimes, the only way to get them to pay attention, dipshit.
No, actually, I don't believe I've ever seen that technique work. Not on the internet, and for that matter, not outside the internet. Not even once.
In popular culture, ages ago, there used to be a stereotyped scene where a guy gets slapped in the face and he straightens up and says "thanks, I needed that." (Was that a scene in a movie, or something? I don't even know where that one originated). I don't think that ever happened, either.
Slashdot Mirror
The obvious sequel to this is for people who find these terms offensive to trademark them preemptively.
What you have to keep in mind is that a trademark is not a legal right to use a term-- it is a legal right to sue others to prevent them from using it.
It's not entirely clear to me that the USPS actually does make money on delivering junk mail. There is a lot of it-- but they don't get paid much for delivering it. First class mail makes money for them. I'm not at all sure whether junk mail does or not.
Keeping the cost of junk mail low, of course, is driven by the lobbying of the junk mail industry. I think we need to blame congress for that
However, what this says is maybe benefits should not be part of your job at all so that companies don't have to deal with this stuff and we can deal with it at a societal level where that is cheaper and more effective.
Hmm-- interesting idea. We could have a government-mandated plan that provides some sort of minimum benefits, which everybody pays into as part of their job, and that could be like a "safety net" applying to all employees, so they're not destitute even if their savings get drained and their company goes bankrupt. And then, companies could also offer benefits beyond this minimum, a "retirement plan," if you will, so people who worked for that company would have an income that's more than that safety-net minimum when they retire. A two-layer plan. The minimum plan would just be be security, be part of the overall social structure.
Say, we could even call it that: "social security." Good name!
Employees of private corporations don't have independent pension funds in the US?
They may or may not. There are a variety of different types of pension plans in the U.S.
The old fashioned pension plan was simply that the company would pay a pension to the retired workers. But this type of pension plan is becoming obsolete, partly because the failure of several large corporations has made it clear that you can't necessarily count on the large corporation continuing to pay the pensions if they go bankrupt.
In short, no. The USPS depends on a certain percentage of spam to exist. They also wouldn't exist without the deal to take small packages from UPS and FedEx. Without a federally-granted monopoly on delivering to your mailbox, the USPS would have gone away already, and good riddance.
You just told me that the USPS delivers to people to whom UPS and FedEx don't deliver.
What? No, no I did not,
Actually, you did, and you repeated it again in your comment. But, you're right: turns out that you apparently didn't actually know that the reason that UPS and FedEX use the US post office to deliver is because it's cheaper for them.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u...
and your lack of reading comprehension is appalling. UPS and FedEx did deliver to those addresses, and they still do, but they are now required to hand the majority of their small packages off to the USPS.
They are "required" to do so because they have a contract to do so. They have a contract to do so because it's cheaper. It's cheaper because the USPS is required to do deliveries.
This handoff typically adds a day on to delivery times, so it harms the customer directly even in cases where the package is subsequently delivered competently.
It may "harm the customer," but UPS and FedEX do it because it is cheaper.
You and I are at odds. I see anonymous posting as the soul of slashdot. Sure some people post anonymously just to troll, but others have very good reasons to remain anonymous.
Unfortunately the flood of sewage spilling from trolls and one-issue-idiots have completely discredited the few with purported "very good reasons" to remain anonymous.
Amazon has been using their own contractors to deliver packages in my area for a while now. From a customer's perspective, my packages arrive exactly within the timeframe as specified by Amazon.
Their technique there is to use their own contractors to deliver to places that are easy to get to, and the USPS to deliver to the ones that are hard to get to.
That business "opportunity to improve" relies on the U.S. Post office to work.
In short, no. The USPS depends on a certain percentage of spam to exist. They also wouldn't exist without the deal to take small packages from UPS and FedEx. Without a federally-granted monopoly on delivering to your mailbox, the USPS would have gone away already, and good riddance.
You just told me that the USPS delivers to people to whom UPS and FedEx don't deliver.
I think that's a valuable service, actually.
Basically, your post says that UPS and FedEx take their profit by delivering to the easy customers, and they use the post office to deliver to the hard ones.
Perhaps you should, I dunno, read the fucking report he linked?
Have you read it? Have you even looked at it?
Telling me that "somewhere" in a hundred-page document there is one or more statements that were inaccurate-- but not stating which statements, or where in the document they are stated--is not an example of "specifically stating what is inaccurate."
I just read it again, though and I will repeat: what specifically was inaccurate, and how and when was it shown not to be justified?
Here it is again, if you would like to point out the specifics: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assess...
I'd be interested in seeing your citation for "much past climate alarmism was not justified."
The 2007 IPCC Report contains numerous wildly inaccurate statements.
My question-- the part you failed to quote--said "who said it, when, what exactly did they say, and in what way was it shown not to be justified?"
You didn't answer my question. You asserted that the IPCC synthesis report was "alarmism" with "numerous inaccurate statements," but didn't point out a single inaccurate statement.
So, I repeat: what specifically was inaccurate, and how and when was it shown not to be justified?
Much past climate alarmism was not justified, and now that credibility has been eroded, many people are no longer listening.
While I'm not a fan of "alarmism," I'd be interested in seeing your citation for "much past climate alarmism was not justified." Specifically what "past climate alarmism" are you referring to, who said it, when, what exactly did they say, and in what way was it shown not to be justified?
And, show me some actual sources, please. I'd like to see something more than just parroting some blog saying "past climate alarmism wasn't justified."
I believe that you may be missing the sarcasm in the original post.
That's easy to miss, since attempted irony is usually indistinguishable from cluelessness on slashdot posts.
You Europeans complain about the US spying and how our government is out of control....
Not all Europeans are the same.
Like Americans, different Europeans have different opinions and say different things.
Oh, come on. It's a quip, nothing more than that.
If you spend more than ten seconds thinking about it, you're overthinking it.
I thought Battlefield Earth was bad enough. That cured me of wanting to read anything else by him.
Try some of his stuff from the '40s, before he did the Dianetics and Scientology thing. Good pulp adventure.
Most of the Mission Earth series were published after his death, which, of course, doesn't mean that he couldn't have written them. My bet is that he outlined the stories and someone else actually wrote them.
Word from people who knew him was that he typed exceptionally quickly, and he wrote as fast as he typed-- he was not the kind of writer who stares at the wall for fifteen minutes and then writes one sentence. I don't see any reason to think he didn't write them-- seems consistent with his style. (The suggestion earlier that he wrote the first seven books but somebody else completed the last three after his death is interesting, though-- I hadn't heard that suggested before.)
Didn't Edison (the "Wizard of Menlo Park") leave New Jersey and set up in Menlo Park, California?
No, he was the wizard of Menlo Park, New Jersey.
There is a town in California called Menlo Park-- it was named after the one in New Jersey after Edison made it famous.
White is very out of favor right now.
Try applying to any New England school right now. If you're not brown or black, you'll dropped to the bottom of the list.
I can't verify that statement using statistics. Here's the black enrollment at Ivy league universities:
http://www.jbhe.com/features/6...
(for reference, blacks compose 12.3% of the population of America)
He was a very evil man. He was white. He supported the Third Reich and personally met with Hitler.
I believe you are confusing Thomas Edison with Henry Ford. Ford personally met Hitler.
Ford was a friend of Edison, but I don't think you can ascribe all of Ford's ideas to Edison.
http://listverse.com/2015/05/04/10-facts-that-will-change-how-you-view-thomas-edison/
and get over it. Whenever a city/state tries to mandate something that is the most common current cause of something bad it fails and just limits our freedoms more. In Mass we made it illegal to text while driving; why? well obviously because the odds of driving poorly are much higher while texting - which is very true; however just pull over people that are driving poorly. There is already a law for that.
This is very easy to do: the signal that a driver is driving poorly is that they crash into things. So, just give tickets to the people who crash into things.
Oh, wait, you'd like to solve the problem before the drivers crash and kill people? Oops, sorry, that's harder.
Google Baotou Lake. It is a direct consequence of buying Chinese solar panels and wind turbines. Green energy isn't so green when you see this.
Waste from rare earth mineral refineries. Nothing to do with solar panels, which don't use any rare earth elements.
Excuse me?
https://e360.yale.edu/features...:
Thin, cheap solar panels need tellurium, which makes up a scant 0.0000001 percent of the earth’s crust, making it three times rarer than gold.
That is a different technology than the panels made in China, which are all silicon panels.
(Also, tellurium is not a rare earth element, not that this matters, since it's not used in the panels made in China.)
You are excused.
Google Baotou Lake. It is a direct consequence of buying Chinese solar panels and wind turbines. Green energy isn't so green when you see this.
Waste from rare earth mineral refineries. Nothing to do with solar panels, which don't use any rare earth elements.
I've not been able to track down to verify, but it appeared this agreement in Paris, would have us in the US paying more "tax"...carbon tax, etc on all sorts of things.
Nope. The Paris agreement commits each nation "to put forward their best efforts."
That's it.
They have Nuclear reactors that can be designed where it is impossible for them to meltdown.
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
https://www.brainyquote.com/qu...
Woa-woah! How does that follow from the definition you've declared? Why does my seeking to draw a response — or even start a flamewar — automatically mean, I do not believe in what I'm saying?
Well, if they believe what they're posting, they are arguing, not trolling. Possibly they are arguing in a way that is obnoxious, ignorant, stupid, deliberately provocative, and using too many ALL CAPS phrases for emphasis... but a real troll-- the old-fashioned kind-- isn't invested in any side of the argument, they only want to make the argument happen.
Verbally slapping someone around is, sometimes, the only way to get them to pay attention, dipshit.
No, actually, I don't believe I've ever seen that technique work. Not on the internet, and for that matter, not outside the internet. Not even once.
In popular culture, ages ago, there used to be a stereotyped scene where a guy gets slapped in the face and he straightens up and says "thanks, I needed that." (Was that a scene in a movie, or something? I don't even know where that one originated). I don't think that ever happened, either.