Yeah you're right I should say it's unfair to Aussie online retailers as well, but that's the point the Aussie retailers have to pay GST on any goods they sell you. It's nice not to pay tax, but it would also be nice to have a tax system not structured in such a way that it puts Australian businesses at a disadvantage over their overseas competitors and potentially forces them and the jobs they create off shore.
Either you're charging GST on every purchase or your not.
For the record I don't think this will rescue Harvey Norman or Myer or anyone. They're price gouging arseholes, but I don't think the government should be taxing some business and not others.
The problem is it isn't the consumers who really pay the tax, it's the retailers. How exactly do you propose that the government tax overseas retailers. I can think of a few options but each one of them forces me to think be careful what you wish for. What you and the retailers seem to support is not good for anybody at all except for the government.
You support free trade, but not when the other "side" is "winning"? Are you crazy? Do you even know what "free trade" is? It's a ticket for transnational companies to do what the hell they like, override local laws and generally be a government unto themselves. Now, what is one-sided?
Here's a rather contrarian viewpoint about plant diversity and natives vs. exotics. In a nutshell, Hudson argues that the decline in biodiversity is so severe ( due, essentially to humans paving the planet ) that most sources of plant diversity should be encouraged. Additionally he points out difficulties in defining "exotic" and "native" due to the way seeds spread naturally. This from a fellow who for many many years has been a source of seeds of rare and unique plants. He argues that feel-good councils that make rules about invasive and exotic species may do more harm than good. An interesting view from someone that I have a lot of respect for.
If there is even less diversity in the plant world than we thought, then I guess his argument may be even stronger. Anyway, possibly something more interesting to read ( ha! yes I know this is/. ) than the OP.
Are you serious? Point 1: in the domain name Hudson states clearly his position -- he sells seeds of exotic plants. This should immediately set alarm bells ringing.
His argument in the linked-to "article" is utter nonsense. There is no doubt in the scientific community that non-indigenous plants cause incredible damage. They [the exotic plants] can displace native counterparts, change soil conditions (abiotic AND biotic), retard germination of native species, out-compete native species, and so on. Partly (but only partly) this can sometimes be because the introduced species have no competition (e.g. predators) in the environment into which they are introduced; they can grow and multiply with nothing in their way (i.e. they have an advantage over the native species). Introduced (exotic) plants can and do result in immeasurable damage to local ecosystems. Let me take your username as an indication of where you live and suggest you look up Kudzu. Now, tell me the benefits it provides in its introduced environments. Hudson is a fool.
You also might want to Google for phrases of the form "I for one welcome our new ___ overlords." That would be a start.
I've spent the last hour googling "I for one welcome our new ___ overlords" and can say with conviction that the most disturbing are the tentacle photos.
In America, the Sherman Antitrust Act is a legal artifact, like "Common Law" and sodomy legislation. While technically still legal precedent, ever since the second revolutionary war(the invisible one) America has all but stopped enforcing such barbaric refuges of bigotry(anti-corporate discrimination).
I for one welcome our new corporate overlords.
I, for one, do not welcome them. And I think you might not either if you have your wish -- your comment is adorably naive. These corporate overlords do not care about personal loss or gain. They do not care about the environment. They do not care about humanity. They do not care about learning nor innovation. They do not care about you. The only thing they care about is their bottom line, extracting fortune and knowledge from the "commoners", stifling innovation, controlling what you think, and controlling how and where you spend your money. I, for one, eagerly anticipate the downfall of the United States of America not because I hate the people but because the people no long have freedom -- you have given it away to a government that is controlled by your corporate overlords and no longer cares about the people. Fortunately the economy of the USA seems to be supporting freedom indirectly by slowly and agonisingly collapsing. Keep your corporate overlords.
It seems to me that the journalist said he was playing "frogger", not the man/youth himself; i.e. he wasn't playing "real life frogger" he was just being an idiot.
I've often wondered about this. My IQ is high (this is relevant, I'm not just saying it for the sake of it) but in primary school (before year 8 in Australia) I had heaps of friends. From about year 9 in school until at least half way through year 12 (the final year in Australia) I was seriously bullied. In the final half of year 12 at school I beefed up a lot and kicked the shit out of a few of the bullies and they stopped attacking me. But my point is that for at least 3.5 years I was under constant stress and anxiety. Now I am in adulthood and I look back on my working career I can see quite clearly that although all my grades and my intellect is fine that I have under-performed mainly due to social ineptitude and constant anxiety and stress which, for the most part, has no underlying work conditions to provoke such a state. I wonder if during those traumatic years my amygdala went through some change. I wonder if I have PTSD!
Do you know what happens when I, as a Ph.D. candidate, submit a paper with no references and smiley faces in the text?.
Also, based on your comment above, perhaps you should stop avoiding placing smiley faces in your text;) If you stopped avoiding them, then by your own assertion your papers would be accepted more often
Literature review isn't necessary in all papers. If your professor says different he is most likely wrong. Literature review is used primarily to support assumptions or gaps in your experiment design, or to refute previous findings. To refute previous findings your experiment must surely include and account for those previous findings. If your hypothesis and experiment makes no assumptions then a literature review included in the final document is mostly pointless. Even if that is false, there are countless papers where previous results and literature are cited and the cited material is finally declared false because nobody cared to check the cited material for many years! as for the "tone" of your written material, well, honestly, if that matters then your supervisors are idiots. A scientific paper does not have to be written in the passive voice, avoid personal pronouns, or have a specific "tone".
Look. Idle is supposed to be STUPID STUFF that's a waste of time. This isn't idle; it's interesting. I swear that slashdot is getting more and more idiotic every time I log in
Pointer typedefs were a bad idea in the 1980s. They're just terrible today. One pet peeve of mine is this: typedef struct _FOO { int Blah; } FOO, *PFOO;
void SomeFunction(const PFOO);
That const doesn't do what you think it does. There was never a good reason to use pointer typedefs. There is certainly no good reason to do so today. Just say no. If your coding convention disagrees, damn the coding convention.
Care to elaborate (on pointer typedefs and the CONST PFOO usage)? Honest question from someone that hasn't touched a C/C++ for the last 12 years and is trying to clear the cob webs.
The pointer is constant... not what it "points to" and the typedef "hides" that
I've not worked as a programmer for, hmm, maybe 15 years and all of this was known way back even before I "retired" from that line of work. Perhaps all these levels of abstraction upon abstraction make things harder to understand. Back in my days these "pitfalls" were obvious because we all (well, not all, but a lot) knew ASM and actually even used it regularly (even inline, *shudder*).
Someone above mentioned pointer typedefs and gave the example of typedef struct { int Blah; } FOO, *PFOO; (yes I left off the bit before the the opening brace deliberately.) and then suggesting that people don't know that void SomeFunction (const PFOO) {} doesn't behave as expected. Now this could, I suppose, be seen as a failure of the language. But, shit, any idiot who understands the underlying logic can see why that causes problems. Which goes back to my point of maybe all these modern levels of abstraction and getting away from the machine are, in some ways, detrimental.
Now, get off my lawn. Umm, except I don't have a lawn because I sprayed the growth inducing hormone RoundUp all over it, but that is beside the point. I think.
"National Australia Bank payments to customers were again delayed today after a computer glitch yesterday morning due to a corrupted file in its mainframe computer. Upset consumers are now demanding compensation for any fees for late mortgage and credit card payments,
If you have a payment due on X date, you wait until day X - 1, and something goes wrong and delays you by one day, this is your fault, not your bank's fault.
Matters would be different if there was a problem at day X - 7 that lasted for 7 days, or X - 14 that lasted for 14 days.
It is not reasonable to expect there will never be any problems with electronic payment systems. 1 to 2 days is reasonable to sort this out, you are taking an unreasonable risk if you don't attempt to complete payment to a bill at least 3 days before the due date.
In other words, these consumers should get stuck with these late fees, and learn about a valuable lesson in taking reasonable steps to ensure their obligations are met, even if something goes not quite as expected with the payment.
Yeah, I guess that's an option when you still live in your parent's basement and the most pressing payment is your latest Steam download or XBox live bill.
He comes from modest heritage [ all Australians are descendants of criminals ].
This has to be the most insane post I've seen in ages. What makes you think that all Australians are descendants of criminals? If you read the early history of Australia you will see how absurd your assertion is. Even very early on, before mass immigrants from Europe and other countries arrived, your statement is wrong.
You may as well say that all Americans are descendants of criminals because most of the original people settling there were paupers, criminals, or people trying to bury their past far from their homeland.
And why shouldn't she have pasted it on facebook? In my parent's photo album there are heaps of photos showing me as a child naked in the bath. They've shown these photos to heaps of people. Not on facebook, but facebook didn't exist back then. Are they child pornography? Of course they're not fucking pornography. They are photos of me as a child in a bubble bath with my brother taken by a parent who loves us both. I was never molested or treated badly. If you choose to view innocent photos in a sexual manner than that is your fucking problem. There is and was nothing sexual in these photos of me and surely to be considered "pornography" there has to be some sexual intent. The fact that you consider that putting them on facebook immediately makes the photos pornographic in nature just says to me that you're as stupid, ignorant and downright idiotic as the rest of the people who think it's pornographic. Fuck you. Thanks.
Oh, and that Cornelius fellow or whatever he calls himself better not respond to my post. He is obviously a siren luring people into his tree before sucking their life out of them as part of some kind of sexual feeding that saps the life out of people like a bug saps, ummm, sap.
True, though it could be done at the distro level, which appears to be the author's plans (the person who wrote this script works for Red Hat, and discussed elsewhere in the thread what Red Hat's plans are for rolling out systemd, which will handle this). Then things would be appropriately updated by the maintainers rather than relying on users to keep their.bashrc synced with infrastructure changes.
I understand what you're saying and agree. The problem I have is with your userid. 597. Users with IDs as low as this are mythical. Kind of like unicorns or maybe even grues; they are creatures of the imagination. Users with sub-1000 user ids are DANGEROUS. They say stuff that most often makes sense and this can be mesmerising. They do this to lure us into the trees to have intercourse with sirens of the forest, I have heard. Your post is an incredible example of the delirium that can ensue when magical beings make posts. Your post also contains NO REFERENCE TO MICROSOFT. This is indeed disturbing and should set alarm bells ringing. I would not be surprised to be able to type "open letterbox" in your post and see an envelope containing a letter or note.
Your posts score is currently 3, so I have to assume you are a successful troll. I also have to assume that you're a complete idiot. Maybe you were trying to be funny but that's not ok. Australia was never a penal colony. The British established a penal colony in Australia. They never declared the whole country was a penal colony and only criminals would go there. Get a fucking clue. Thanks.
But based on everything I've read online, including here on slashdot, US copyright law is the most absurd in the world. As far as I can see there is basically no fair use if you live within the United States of America. Even if US law allows it I would hazard to guess that many people are unwilling and reluctant to apply "fair use". The litigious nature of your corporations and government almost ensure that most sane persons will err on the side of caution, and maybe not publish anything at all in fear of being sued. How the fuck does fear encourage innovation?
Never say never I think. Mammal red blood cells lack a nucleus, but this is not generally true for the red blood cells of other vertebrates. Why not engineer a solution that yields mammalian red blood cells with a nucleus? Considering what has already been done I don't see this as an impossibility.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if all those dead birds, fish and stuff that have been turning up ate the bacteria or ate something that ate the bacteria :D
to 6 from 10
I do not think it means what you think it means...
Well, it's not really his fault. Nobody writes "to 6 from 10"; a normal person would write "from 10 to 6"
Yeah you're right I should say it's unfair to Aussie online retailers as well, but that's the point the Aussie retailers have to pay GST on any goods they sell you. It's nice not to pay tax, but it would also be nice to have a tax system not structured in such a way that it puts Australian businesses at a disadvantage over their overseas competitors and potentially forces them and the jobs they create off shore.
Either you're charging GST on every purchase or your not.
For the record I don't think this will rescue Harvey Norman or Myer or anyone. They're price gouging arseholes, but I don't think the government should be taxing some business and not others.
The problem is it isn't the consumers who really pay the tax, it's the retailers. How exactly do you propose that the government tax overseas retailers. I can think of a few options but each one of them forces me to think be careful what you wish for . What you and the retailers seem to support is not good for anybody at all except for the government.
You could have taken the breath test
You support free trade, but not when the other "side" is "winning"? Are you crazy? Do you even know what "free trade" is? It's a ticket for transnational companies to do what the hell they like, override local laws and generally be a government unto themselves. Now, what is one-sided?
Here's a rather contrarian viewpoint about plant diversity and natives vs. exotics. In a nutshell, Hudson argues that the decline in biodiversity is so severe ( due, essentially to humans paving the planet ) that most sources of plant diversity should be encouraged. Additionally he points out difficulties in defining "exotic" and "native" due to the way seeds spread naturally. This from a fellow who for many many years has been a source of seeds of rare and unique plants. He argues that feel-good councils that make rules about invasive and exotic species may do more harm than good. An interesting view from someone that I have a lot of respect for.
If there is even less diversity in the plant world than we thought, then I guess his argument may be even stronger. Anyway, possibly something more interesting to read ( ha! yes I know this is /. ) than the OP.
Related, excellent read, for those interested Plants, Man, and Life
Are you serious? Point 1: in the domain name Hudson states clearly his position -- he sells seeds of exotic plants. This should immediately set alarm bells ringing.
His argument in the linked-to "article" is utter nonsense. There is no doubt in the scientific community that non-indigenous plants cause incredible damage. They [the exotic plants] can displace native counterparts, change soil conditions (abiotic AND biotic), retard germination of native species, out-compete native species, and so on. Partly (but only partly) this can sometimes be because the introduced species have no competition (e.g. predators) in the environment into which they are introduced; they can grow and multiply with nothing in their way (i.e. they have an advantage over the native species). Introduced (exotic) plants can and do result in immeasurable damage to local ecosystems. Let me take your username as an indication of where you live and suggest you look up Kudzu. Now, tell me the benefits it provides in its introduced environments. Hudson is a fool.
The concept of sarcasm is lost on you, isn't it?
You also might want to Google for phrases of the form "I for one welcome our new ___ overlords." That would be a start.
I've spent the last hour googling "I for one welcome our new ___ overlords" and can say with conviction that the most disturbing are the tentacle photos.
That's adorably naive.
In America, the Sherman Antitrust Act is a legal artifact, like "Common Law" and sodomy legislation. While technically still legal precedent, ever since the second revolutionary war(the invisible one) America has all but stopped enforcing such barbaric refuges of bigotry(anti-corporate discrimination).
I for one welcome our new corporate overlords.
I, for one, do not welcome them. And I think you might not either if you have your wish -- your comment is adorably naive. These corporate overlords do not care about personal loss or gain. They do not care about the environment. They do not care about humanity. They do not care about learning nor innovation. They do not care about you. The only thing they care about is their bottom line, extracting fortune and knowledge from the "commoners", stifling innovation, controlling what you think, and controlling how and where you spend your money. I, for one, eagerly anticipate the downfall of the United States of America not because I hate the people but because the people no long have freedom -- you have given it away to a government that is controlled by your corporate overlords and no longer cares about the people. Fortunately the economy of the USA seems to be supporting freedom indirectly by slowly and agonisingly collapsing. Keep your corporate overlords.
It seems to me that the journalist said he was playing "frogger", not the man/youth himself; i.e. he wasn't playing "real life frogger" he was just being an idiot.
I've often wondered about this. My IQ is high (this is relevant, I'm not just saying it for the sake of it) but in primary school (before year 8 in Australia) I had heaps of friends. From about year 9 in school until at least half way through year 12 (the final year in Australia) I was seriously bullied. In the final half of year 12 at school I beefed up a lot and kicked the shit out of a few of the bullies and they stopped attacking me. But my point is that for at least 3.5 years I was under constant stress and anxiety. Now I am in adulthood and I look back on my working career I can see quite clearly that although all my grades and my intellect is fine that I have under-performed mainly due to social ineptitude and constant anxiety and stress which, for the most part, has no underlying work conditions to provoke such a state. I wonder if during those traumatic years my amygdala went through some change. I wonder if I have PTSD!
Have a look at the prize money offered to men vs. the prize money offered to women.
Do you know what happens when I, as a Ph.D. candidate, submit a paper with no references and smiley faces in the text?.
Also, based on your comment above, perhaps you should stop avoiding placing smiley faces in your text ;) If you stopped avoiding them, then by your own assertion your papers would be accepted more often
Literature review isn't necessary in all papers. If your professor says different he is most likely wrong. Literature review is used primarily to support assumptions or gaps in your experiment design, or to refute previous findings. To refute previous findings your experiment must surely include and account for those previous findings. If your hypothesis and experiment makes no assumptions then a literature review included in the final document is mostly pointless. Even if that is false, there are countless papers where previous results and literature are cited and the cited material is finally declared false because nobody cared to check the cited material for many years! as for the "tone" of your written material, well, honestly, if that matters then your supervisors are idiots. A scientific paper does not have to be written in the passive voice, avoid personal pronouns, or have a specific "tone".
Good point. I never thought of that.
Look. Idle is supposed to be STUPID STUFF that's a waste of time. This isn't idle; it's interesting. I swear that slashdot is getting more and more idiotic every time I log in
Pointer typedefs were a bad idea in the 1980s. They're just terrible today. One pet peeve of mine is this:
typedef struct _FOO { int Blah; } FOO, *PFOO;
void
SomeFunction(const PFOO);
That const doesn't do what you think it does. There was never a good reason to use pointer typedefs. There is certainly no good reason to do so today. Just say no. If your coding convention disagrees, damn the coding convention.
Care to elaborate (on pointer typedefs and the CONST PFOO usage)? Honest question from someone that hasn't touched a C/C++ for the last 12 years and is trying to clear the cob webs.
The pointer is constant... not what it "points to" and the typedef "hides" that
I've not worked as a programmer for, hmm, maybe 15 years and all of this was known way back even before I "retired" from that line of work. Perhaps all these levels of abstraction upon abstraction make things harder to understand. Back in my days these "pitfalls" were obvious because we all (well, not all, but a lot) knew ASM and actually even used it regularly (even inline, *shudder*).
Someone above mentioned pointer typedefs and gave the example of typedef struct { int Blah; } FOO, *PFOO; (yes I left off the bit before the the opening brace deliberately.) and then suggesting that people don't know that void SomeFunction (const PFOO) {} doesn't behave as expected. Now this could, I suppose, be seen as a failure of the language. But, shit, any idiot who understands the underlying logic can see why that causes problems. Which goes back to my point of maybe all these modern levels of abstraction and getting away from the machine are, in some ways, detrimental.
Now, get off my lawn. Umm, except I don't have a lawn because I sprayed the growth inducing hormone RoundUp all over it, but that is beside the point. I think.
"National Australia Bank payments to customers were again delayed today after a computer glitch yesterday morning due to a corrupted file in its mainframe computer. Upset consumers are now demanding compensation for any fees for late mortgage and credit card payments,
If you have a payment due on X date, you wait until day X - 1, and something goes wrong and delays you by one day, this is your fault, not your bank's fault.
Matters would be different if there was a problem at day X - 7 that lasted for 7 days,
or X - 14 that lasted for 14 days.
It is not reasonable to expect there will never be any problems with electronic payment systems.
1 to 2 days is reasonable to sort this out, you are taking an unreasonable risk if you don't attempt to complete payment to a bill at least 3 days before the due date.
In other words, these consumers should get stuck with these late fees, and learn about a valuable lesson in
taking reasonable steps to ensure their obligations are met, even if something goes not quite as expected with the payment.
Yeah, I guess that's an option when you still live in your parent's basement and the most pressing payment is your latest Steam download or XBox live bill.
He comes from modest heritage [ all Australians are descendants of criminals ].
This has to be the most insane post I've seen in ages. What makes you think that all Australians are descendants of criminals? If you read the early history of Australia you will see how absurd your assertion is. Even very early on, before mass immigrants from Europe and other countries arrived, your statement is wrong.
You may as well say that all Americans are descendants of criminals because most of the original people settling there were paupers, criminals, or people trying to bury their past far from their homeland.
And why shouldn't she have pasted it on facebook? In my parent's photo album there are heaps of photos showing me as a child naked in the bath. They've shown these photos to heaps of people. Not on facebook, but facebook didn't exist back then. Are they child pornography? Of course they're not fucking pornography. They are photos of me as a child in a bubble bath with my brother taken by a parent who loves us both. I was never molested or treated badly. If you choose to view innocent photos in a sexual manner than that is your fucking problem. There is and was nothing sexual in these photos of me and surely to be considered "pornography" there has to be some sexual intent. The fact that you consider that putting them on facebook immediately makes the photos pornographic in nature just says to me that you're as stupid, ignorant and downright idiotic as the rest of the people who think it's pornographic. Fuck you. Thanks.
Oh, and that Cornelius fellow or whatever he calls himself better not respond to my post. He is obviously a siren luring people into his tree before sucking their life out of them as part of some kind of sexual feeding that saps the life out of people like a bug saps, ummm, sap.
True, though it could be done at the distro level, which appears to be the author's plans (the person who wrote this script works for Red Hat, and discussed elsewhere in the thread what Red Hat's plans are for rolling out systemd, which will handle this). Then things would be appropriately updated by the maintainers rather than relying on users to keep their .bashrc synced with infrastructure changes.
I understand what you're saying and agree. The problem I have is with your userid. 597. Users with IDs as low as this are mythical. Kind of like unicorns or maybe even grues; they are creatures of the imagination. Users with sub-1000 user ids are DANGEROUS. They say stuff that most often makes sense and this can be mesmerising. They do this to lure us into the trees to have intercourse with sirens of the forest, I have heard. Your post is an incredible example of the delirium that can ensue when magical beings make posts. Your post also contains NO REFERENCE TO MICROSOFT. This is indeed disturbing and should set alarm bells ringing. I would not be surprised to be able to type "open letterbox" in your post and see an envelope containing a letter or note.
Your posts score is currently 3, so I have to assume you are a successful troll. I also have to assume that you're a complete idiot. Maybe you were trying to be funny but that's not ok. Australia was never a penal colony. The British established a penal colony in Australia. They never declared the whole country was a penal colony and only criminals would go there. Get a fucking clue. Thanks.
But based on everything I've read online, including here on slashdot, US copyright law is the most absurd in the world. As far as I can see there is basically no fair use if you live within the United States of America. Even if US law allows it I would hazard to guess that many people are unwilling and reluctant to apply "fair use". The litigious nature of your corporations and government almost ensure that most sane persons will err on the side of caution, and maybe not publish anything at all in fear of being sued. How the fuck does fear encourage innovation?
No can do with red blood cells. No nucleus.
Never say never I think. Mammal red blood cells lack a nucleus, but this is not generally true for the red blood cells of other vertebrates. Why not engineer a solution that yields mammalian red blood cells with a nucleus? Considering what has already been done I don't see this as an impossibility.