That's because the interiors of any terrestrial planets in these systems are likely warmer than Earth—up to 25 percent warmer, which would make them more geologically active and more likely to retain enough liquid water to support life, at least in its microbial form.
The bolded part is impossible. The probability of the Earth retaining enough liquid water to support life -- and not just in its microbial form -- is 100% (its known that it does, so there is no probability that it does not.) So its not possible for any terrestrial planets in those systems to be more likely to do that than Earth is.
You can bet that Mexico will not receive that money.
Well, yeah, its a civil case between two private companies in a Mexican court. Even if the non-final verdict does become final and Yahoo! fully complies with it, then Mexico won't get that money -- the plaintiffs, Worldwide Directories SA de CV and Ideas Interactivas SA de CV, would get the money.
Instead of spending locally? You know why we're not spending locally? Because brick and mortar stores are fucking clueless.
If that's a reason, then internet retailers will continue to thrive even without a de facto tax subsidy from the fact that their transactions are taxed via impractical-to-enforce use taxes rather than simpler-to-enforce sales taxes. So that's no reason to oppose this bill.
We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
Even taking this article of faith seriously, that's not argument against replacing more-expensive-to-collect use taxes with less-expensive-to-collect sales taxes on internet retail transactions.
They want to raise taxes on the "rich" by 1.6 trillion over 10 years. That's about 180 billion a year.
$1.6 trillion over 10 years is $160 billion a year, not $180 billion, but that's not the real problem with your argument. The real problem is that the whole thing is a red herring.
Relevant to this proposal, "they" don't want to tax the rich at all. This is about a bill which permits states to impose sales taxes (which are paid directly by the retailer) on certain transactions which currently are usually taxed, at the same rate as sales tax, via use taxes paid by the purchaser (which are more difficult to collect), because the Commerce Clause limits states ability to tax interstate transactions in the absence of Congressional action by way of the "dormant Commerce Clause". Its not about taxing the rich, its about not creating a de facto tax subsidy to online retailers through the increased difficulty of collecting use taxes vs. sales taxes.
Why so? If the problem is on the spending side (which appears almost beyond reasonable doubt)
"The problem" isn't on either the taxing or the spending side, because there isn't one simple problem. The biggest problem on both the tax and spending sides isn't the total rate of taxation of the volume of spending, its the distribution of taxes and the distribution of spending. Among the distribution problems at the state level on the tax side is that, in the absence of Congressional action, the reservation of interstate commerce powers to the federal government under the Commerce Clause -- intended to create an efficient competitive market by preventing states from unfairly discriminating between in-state and out-of-state transactions by favoring the former causes sales taxes (even when combined with use taxes for transactions not subject to the sales tax, because of logistical differences in enforcement between sales and use taxes) to discriminate in favor of out-of-state transactions when, as is the case with the internet, it is possible to conduct those with no significant nexus in the state.
No, it's not. You're right. The big problem is that if you allow it, it's intrinsically the same thing as doing the act- as they'll just increase taxes all the same.
Its not a tax increase, its a change in the locus of taxation from the use side to the sales side for the same transactions, which makes the existing tax on the transaction easier to enforce, and negates a de facto tax subsidy to online business retail resulting from the difficulty of enforcing use taxes. This de facto subsidy turns the purpose of the dormant Commerce Clause barrier that creates it in the absence of specific Congressional action on its head; the reservation of interstate commerce powers to the federal government is supposed to prevent states from discriminating between in-state and out-of-state commerce, but the effect of the barrire is to discriminate against in-state transactions.
Or they could just start enforcing the USE part of the Sales & Use Tax that most states already have.
Enforcement on the use side is uneconomical, because (unlike the sales side) you have too big of a pool of targets, and no smaller group to mandate information collection from (its essentially equivalent to trying to the problem that the IRS would face with income tax if you got rid of mandatory reporting by employers, interest-paying banks, etc.) -- and the obvious reporters are protected by the same dormant commerce clause barrier from being subjected to mandatory reporting that prevents them from being hit up directly for sales taxes.
Of course, the thing about a a dormant commerce clause barrier is that it goes away when Congress listens to the states and waives the barrier. Since the use part is identical in effect, but for enforcement logistics, to the sales part, its obviously more efficient and better for everyone for Congress to act and enable states to collect a sales tax than it is for states to enforce a use tax.
I'm going to assume none of these senators have taken the Norquist pledge?
Well, first, voting to remove a federal barrier to state taxes isn't raising a tax (it might let other people raise a tax, but that's up to those other people.)
Second, quite possibly not. The influence of Norquist's idiotic pledge is declining even among Republicans in Congress, because even while the Republican Party continues to become increasingly radicalized, many of its members in office realize that the idea that you can never raise the tax rate on anyone is stupidity that is both substantively bad and, in times when there are real tough decisions to make, a lead weight around their political necks.
Any code that doesn't access the same resources can be run simultaneously.
Any code that doesn't access the same memory location can be run simultaneously, as can any code that does access the same memory location as long as that access is all read-only.
But if more than one bit of code accesses any external resources (even different external resources), you can't parallelize (or do anything that might reorder) them without potentially changing the results.
I firmly believe that the intersection of people who appreciate the tablet form factor but also would like to use legacy apps is large enough to sustain x86 Windows 8 tablets, especially in business and education.
I both appreciate the tablet form factor and expect to need to continue to use legacy desktop apps designed for keyboard-and-mouse Windows-before-8, so in theory I'd be part of what you see as the market sustaining Windows 8 x86 tablets. OTOH, I have zero interest in a Windows tablet (whether Windows 8 or otherwise) -- because I'm not interested in using a tablet to run legacy apps designed for a desktop UI, and I'm not interested in sacrificing the usefulness of a tablet for extended away-from-power use so that I can use the tablet for legacy apps.
Just because I appreciate the utility of a road vehicle for travel and I'd like to have a home to live in doesn't mean I'm part of the market for RVs that can serve both roles, but neither purpose as well as something dedicated to that one purpose.
iOS devices seem to take in (depending on who you ask) around 65-80% of mobile web traffic to sites.
iOS -- especially 6.x -- has some bad behaviors that increase the amount of traffic it consumes for the same functions.
Its a bandwidth hog (and, on top of that, a WiFi hog), and generally doesn't play nice with infrastructure.
What do these devices have that couldn't be implemented as an app on a general purpose smartphone or tablet?
Aside from non-technical advantages (e.g., being allowed to use particular ones in exames), in general for graphing (and just plain scientific, engineering, or financial) calculators, a big plus is a physical keyboard optimized for the particular use. That's actually a weak point of this new Casio device (which seems to have very few keys other than the numeric keys), so I doubt it will catch on, but specialty calculators in general still have advantages, though general purpose devices will often be good enough for most users.
Apparently none of those jokers ever read Heinlein's The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.
Well, first, this effort got underway in 1957, a TMIAHM was published in 1966. So that's not surprising.
Second, the plan was never implemented, so its quite possible that some of the people involved in exploring it found various reasons for rejecting it, including the ones one might infer from TMIAHM.
It seems to me like Apple wouldn't have made the switch right away on iOS 6 if they weren't confident that the software was ready. Someone had to stand up and say, "This is ready" or "This is not ready". If Mr. Williamson was in charge of it, and he told his bosses with confidence that it was ready, he should be fired
His boss prior to the iOS 6 release -- the Senior VP of iOS Software, Scott Forstall -- was already sent packing as a result of iOS 6 Maps fiasco, and had his responsibilities split among a number of others. Its possible that Williamson wasn't fired for any particular action regarding iOS 6 Maps as because the new executive responsible was building his own team. But, really, its all speculation.
Practically? This clearly demonstrates that it pays for the windows license and is also a revenue stream.
Or, it demonstrates that there isn't a lot of competition in the market for manufacturer-optimized linux-installed laptops, and that Dell is using the lack of competition in that market to extract rents. The idea that prices can be expected to closely mirror manufacturer costs is correct so far as the expected long-term result in a competitive market where no player is pricing based on influencing some other market, but its not necessarily true in the short run, or when there is little competition for a specific class of good, or where there are market participants that are using one product to draw people into another market.
So, are you against Obama when he makes "symbolic, substance-free gesture in order to generate the illusion that he is interested in" doing something you agree with?
I am against people who characterize anyone's "symbolic, substance-free gesture in order to generate the illusion that he is interested in" anything as if it were substantive action in that direction, whether the actor is someone I generally support or not, and whether the illusion is directed at a position I generally support or not, and whether the person making the characterization is the actor or some third party.
Cutting 900 million out of a budget that is Trillions of dollars under funded, is one of those "symbolic, substance-free gesture in order to generate the illusion that he is interested in" doing something.
No, cutting $900 million dollars out of budget is substantive -- it actually acheives a concrete result -- even if it isn't significant given the scale of the problem being addressed (though I'm not sure what actual proposal you are referring to with this $900 million -- the only thing that I can find easily that seems to match that are news stories covering individual pieces of the sequestration cuts [the two widespread ones that match $900 million are the sequestration cuts to FEMA and Special Education Grants, each around $900 million] which in total come to $65 billion out of current-year funds -- against an estimated $1.3 T deficit; and they aren't really Obama's proposals, they are the administrations calculation of the across-the-board cuts mandated in the Budget Control Act; the actual budget proposals Obama has made have included something like $421 billion in cuts to Medicare & Medicaid alone over a ten year window. So I have some doubt that the suggestion that Obama has proposed $900 million in cuts to a budget "trillions" in deficit is even remotely accurate, whether or not it would be empty and symbolic.)
OTOH, proposing a law which would automatically be overriden by any of the laws it is billed as "prohibiting" actually does nothing, and is empty and symbolic.
Or going to a book store with his kids in support of buying "local" when most of the time he doesn't do any thing like this.
I don't recall anyone trying to sell that as an official government act which was substantively acheiving some policy good. If someone did try to sell it that way, that would be silly.
I haven't personally played with the multiple user accounts support in Android 4.2, but from what I've read about it online, it already does everything that you want (with the exception of completely separate OSes).
Each account has their own separate filesystem space that is not accessible to other accounts. Each account has its own Play store account. Each account has their own separate apps installed. Etc.
If you have root on the phone, you can presumably access any account.
Having root on a system with a hypervisor doesn't give you root on the operating systems running under the hypervisor, so it the corporate environment can be genuinely secure without the corporation having sole root control of the phone.
No. Automatic cuts to their gorging by spending is a good thing.
Sequestration is the best thing that could happen to Congress.
The whole bunch of expiring tax cuts may not be the best thing that could happen to Americans, though (almost everyone thinks that some of them shouldn't expire, the main debate on the tax side is over whether a small subset of them should be extended.)
What if a moratorium was added, by default, to all but the most important laws the first time they were passed? This could make it mandatory to review the worth of a law after it has been in effect for a while.
As written, this is gibberish. I suspect you may have confused a moratorium with a sunset date; the two are very, very different things.
They cry about their precious "Net Neutrality" even as this bill unconditionally outlaws...
The bill doesn't really outlaw anything, since any bill regulating the internet would -- without even requiring a specific mention -- override this one exactly as much as necessary for the new bill to be given effect. This bill does nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
The bolded part is impossible. The probability of the Earth retaining enough liquid water to support life -- and not just in its microbial form -- is 100% (its known that it does, so there is no probability that it does not.) So its not possible for any terrestrial planets in those systems to be more likely to do that than Earth is.
Well, yeah, its a civil case between two private companies in a Mexican court. Even if the non-final verdict does become final and Yahoo! fully complies with it, then Mexico won't get that money -- the plaintiffs, Worldwide Directories SA de CV and Ideas Interactivas SA de CV, would get the money.
Online retailers can easily choose to only do sell to places they are set up to collect and pay taxes for.
No. Because for one thing, its not a fact. In fact, its not even possible for it to be a fact.
If that's a reason, then internet retailers will continue to thrive even without a de facto tax subsidy from the fact that their transactions are taxed via impractical-to-enforce use taxes rather than simpler-to-enforce sales taxes. So that's no reason to oppose this bill.
Even taking this article of faith seriously, that's not argument against replacing more-expensive-to-collect use taxes with less-expensive-to-collect sales taxes on internet retail transactions.
$1.6 trillion over 10 years is $160 billion a year, not $180 billion, but that's not the real problem with your argument. The real problem is that the whole thing is a red herring.
Relevant to this proposal, "they" don't want to tax the rich at all. This is about a bill which permits states to impose sales taxes (which are paid directly by the retailer) on certain transactions which currently are usually taxed, at the same rate as sales tax, via use taxes paid by the purchaser (which are more difficult to collect), because the Commerce Clause limits states ability to tax interstate transactions in the absence of Congressional action by way of the "dormant Commerce Clause". Its not about taxing the rich, its about not creating a de facto tax subsidy to online retailers through the increased difficulty of collecting use taxes vs. sales taxes.
"The problem" isn't on either the taxing or the spending side, because there isn't one simple problem. The biggest problem on both the tax and spending sides isn't the total rate of taxation of the volume of spending, its the distribution of taxes and the distribution of spending. Among the distribution problems at the state level on the tax side is that, in the absence of Congressional action, the reservation of interstate commerce powers to the federal government under the Commerce Clause -- intended to create an efficient competitive market by preventing states from unfairly discriminating between in-state and out-of-state transactions by favoring the former causes sales taxes (even when combined with use taxes for transactions not subject to the sales tax, because of logistical differences in enforcement between sales and use taxes) to discriminate in favor of out-of-state transactions when, as is the case with the internet, it is possible to conduct those with no significant nexus in the state.
This proposal fixes that problem.
Its not a tax increase, its a change in the locus of taxation from the use side to the sales side for the same transactions, which makes the existing tax on the transaction easier to enforce, and negates a de facto tax subsidy to online business retail resulting from the difficulty of enforcing use taxes. This de facto subsidy turns the purpose of the dormant Commerce Clause barrier that creates it in the absence of specific Congressional action on its head; the reservation of interstate commerce powers to the federal government is supposed to prevent states from discriminating between in-state and out-of-state commerce, but the effect of the barrire is to discriminate against in-state transactions.
Enforcement on the use side is uneconomical, because (unlike the sales side) you have too big of a pool of targets, and no smaller group to mandate information collection from (its essentially equivalent to trying to the problem that the IRS would face with income tax if you got rid of mandatory reporting by employers, interest-paying banks, etc.) -- and the obvious reporters are protected by the same dormant commerce clause barrier from being subjected to mandatory reporting that prevents them from being hit up directly for sales taxes. Of course, the thing about a a dormant commerce clause barrier is that it goes away when Congress listens to the states and waives the barrier. Since the use part is identical in effect, but for enforcement logistics, to the sales part, its obviously more efficient and better for everyone for Congress to act and enable states to collect a sales tax than it is for states to enforce a use tax.
Well, first, voting to remove a federal barrier to state taxes isn't raising a tax (it might let other people raise a tax, but that's up to those other people.) Second, quite possibly not. The influence of Norquist's idiotic pledge is declining even among Republicans in Congress, because even while the Republican Party continues to become increasingly radicalized, many of its members in office realize that the idea that you can never raise the tax rate on anyone is stupidity that is both substantively bad and, in times when there are real tough decisions to make, a lead weight around their political necks.
Any code that doesn't access the same memory location can be run simultaneously, as can any code that does access the same memory location as long as that access is all read-only. But if more than one bit of code accesses any external resources (even different external resources), you can't parallelize (or do anything that might reorder) them without potentially changing the results.
I both appreciate the tablet form factor and expect to need to continue to use legacy desktop apps designed for keyboard-and-mouse Windows-before-8, so in theory I'd be part of what you see as the market sustaining Windows 8 x86 tablets. OTOH, I have zero interest in a Windows tablet (whether Windows 8 or otherwise) -- because I'm not interested in using a tablet to run legacy apps designed for a desktop UI, and I'm not interested in sacrificing the usefulness of a tablet for extended away-from-power use so that I can use the tablet for legacy apps. Just because I appreciate the utility of a road vehicle for travel and I'd like to have a home to live in doesn't mean I'm part of the market for RVs that can serve both roles, but neither purpose as well as something dedicated to that one purpose.
iOS -- especially 6.x -- has some bad behaviors that increase the amount of traffic it consumes for the same functions. Its a bandwidth hog (and, on top of that, a WiFi hog), and generally doesn't play nice with infrastructure.
Aside from non-technical advantages (e.g., being allowed to use particular ones in exames), in general for graphing (and just plain scientific, engineering, or financial) calculators, a big plus is a physical keyboard optimized for the particular use. That's actually a weak point of this new Casio device (which seems to have very few keys other than the numeric keys), so I doubt it will catch on, but specialty calculators in general still have advantages, though general purpose devices will often be good enough for most users.
Well, first, this effort got underway in 1957, a TMIAHM was published in 1966. So that's not surprising. Second, the plan was never implemented, so its quite possible that some of the people involved in exploring it found various reasons for rejecting it, including the ones one might infer from TMIAHM.
Williamson isn't the first, or highest-ranking, Apple employee to be forced out over iOS 6 Maps.
His boss prior to the iOS 6 release -- the Senior VP of iOS Software, Scott Forstall -- was already sent packing as a result of iOS 6 Maps fiasco, and had his responsibilities split among a number of others. Its possible that Williamson wasn't fired for any particular action regarding iOS 6 Maps as because the new executive responsible was building his own team. But, really, its all speculation.
Or, it demonstrates that there isn't a lot of competition in the market for manufacturer-optimized linux-installed laptops, and that Dell is using the lack of competition in that market to extract rents. The idea that prices can be expected to closely mirror manufacturer costs is correct so far as the expected long-term result in a competitive market where no player is pricing based on influencing some other market, but its not necessarily true in the short run, or when there is little competition for a specific class of good, or where there are market participants that are using one product to draw people into another market.
I am against people who characterize anyone's "symbolic, substance-free gesture in order to generate the illusion that he is interested in" anything as if it were substantive action in that direction, whether the actor is someone I generally support or not, and whether the illusion is directed at a position I generally support or not, and whether the person making the characterization is the actor or some third party.
No, cutting $900 million dollars out of budget is substantive -- it actually acheives a concrete result -- even if it isn't significant given the scale of the problem being addressed (though I'm not sure what actual proposal you are referring to with this $900 million -- the only thing that I can find easily that seems to match that are news stories covering individual pieces of the sequestration cuts [the two widespread ones that match $900 million are the sequestration cuts to FEMA and Special Education Grants, each around $900 million] which in total come to $65 billion out of current-year funds -- against an estimated $1.3 T deficit; and they aren't really Obama's proposals, they are the administrations calculation of the across-the-board cuts mandated in the Budget Control Act; the actual budget proposals Obama has made have included something like $421 billion in cuts to Medicare & Medicaid alone over a ten year window. So I have some doubt that the suggestion that Obama has proposed $900 million in cuts to a budget "trillions" in deficit is even remotely accurate, whether or not it would be empty and symbolic.) OTOH, proposing a law which would automatically be overriden by any of the laws it is billed as "prohibiting" actually does nothing, and is empty and symbolic.
I don't recall anyone trying to sell that as an official government act which was substantively acheiving some policy good. If someone did try to sell it that way, that would be silly.
If you have root on the phone, you can presumably access any account. Having root on a system with a hypervisor doesn't give you root on the operating systems running under the hypervisor, so it the corporate environment can be genuinely secure without the corporation having sole root control of the phone.
The whole bunch of expiring tax cuts may not be the best thing that could happen to Americans, though (almost everyone thinks that some of them shouldn't expire, the main debate on the tax side is over whether a small subset of them should be extended.)
As written, this is gibberish. I suspect you may have confused a moratorium with a sunset date; the two are very, very different things.
The bill doesn't really outlaw anything, since any bill regulating the internet would -- without even requiring a specific mention -- override this one exactly as much as necessary for the new bill to be given effect. This bill does nothing.
How is Obama going to veto something that isn't going to get to his desk?