Ultimately, smoking restrictions came about due to the extreme discourtesy of some smokers.
Added that. But of course, we have anti-beating laws because of the extreme discourtesy of some stronger people; anti-embezzling laws because of the extreme discourtesy of some accountants; etc.
let me just ask if you can name another company that went from nothing to hundreds of millions of daily users in little more than a decade.
Well, first, I'd contend that its an unfair challenge. Absolute numbers ignores population growth. And "daily users" as well as rapid spread both ignore the advantages that software have in unit cost and usage patterns. But even given that, it's kinda trivial to find enough companies that meet your challenge that I have to cull them to get around Slashdot's lameness filter.
Break included for lameness filter.
Break included for lameness filter.
And that's just new companies. If we count what happens once a company decides to start a new division or pivot to a new space... well..
Well, I think that corn syrup is less sweet than sugar, on a per calorie basis. So soda companies use more. And that's when it's being used as a sweetener.
burden on the system is an excuse. They see smoking as detrimental to their health, so they want to tax people to discourage them from engaging in the activity.
Good, I'm glad its an incentivization because if it was some lame ass attempt to remove the concept of pooled risk, that would suck.
That is, I think discouraging people from smoking, for their own benefit, treating them as valuable, that works. But trying to recoup costs doesn't make sense for a government to try to do.
encouraging its people to look for revolutionary rather than incremental changes, to bring 10X or 100X improvements... built products used on a daily basis by hundreds of millions of people... "we've literally changed the world in a little over a decade"
I find that an astounding set of points. When I think of Google, I have trouble thinking of anything both successful (used by hundreds of millions) and revolutionary. Everything that achieved widespread acceptance either was acquired, or was a fairly minor improvement over an existing solution.
Not that there are not interesting projects that Google does. Not that the back end of Google's infrastructure is not impressive. But nothing customer-facing.
For the record, I'm thinking of the major Google products as
Everything else seems to be a research project (Glass, Dart) or a failure (Wave, Go). Note, I may have Dart and Go backwards.
Diplomatic immunity is not retroactive.
Sweden and the UK would have to accept him as a diplomat.
Diplomatic immunity does not cover rape.
None of which even touches on there is a huge difference between giving refuge at an embassy, and allowing him to escape scot free. I mean, hell, they could put him in a diplomatic pouch and get him to Ecuador if they wanted, but it would be pretty poor form.
then why do you subsidize unemployment?.
Well, that's a completely unsubstantiated statement, except for the "Emperor's New Clothes" statement that smart enough people will see it as self-evident.
Just keep the population subsidizing it to the population that actually uses it
There's no reason why that would be necessary at all. You just seem to be shifting from a subsidy, to forced government accounting/purchases. Whats the difference between someone a thousand miles away and someone who never uses transit?
It's not going to keep them off the roads. It's going to notify the local law enforcement, so they can pick up the driver for a DUI.
After all, preventing someone from driving doesn't have the revenue^H^H^H^H^H^H^H deterrence effects of thousands of dollars of fines.
I don't see why we should single out groups that have historically faced hurdles - at least not crass groups like gender or race. Those "helping hands" invariably go to those who already have huge advantages - the fortunate few within those groups. Meanwhile, those left behind in other groups are further marginalized because of the race; receiving the message "White males shouldn't need any extra help"
I'm all for helping people who need it. And, if it turns out that 90% of the people who need it are minorities (or female, or whatever), I have no beef with that. But I oppose that as the test for who needs it.
Of all companies, surely the number-one big data company - Google - can find a better metric for helping people.
Silly you, that idea would require reading... maybe Adam Smith (who says the same thing) or the studies from Norway that demonstrated the advantage their mobility provided in the late 00's.
mass transit is already hugely subsidized...
Not in Atlanta. There are a lot of politicans scared by "OMG black people in suburbs around white women" who have worked damn hard to prevent subsidization. They even passed laws requiring wasting the federal subsidies (the feds pushed back on that somewhat... now only 1/2 of the dollars are wasted).
Recently, votes supporting subsidization of the transit system were lost.
Further, the control is kinda crazy, there are many competing transit options on a county by county basis (keeping in mind that the Atlanta area has like a dozen counties) that interoperate poorly to prevent the mixing of economic strata, and the state control that keeps things from being done well...
. Most mass transit systems do NOT break even after collecting all the tickets and passes... As such, saying "hey they should just lower prices" is not really rational.
It's perfectly rational to subsizide things you want more of. And it's hard to think of a reason to not want more mass transit. Lower traffic, lower pollution, lower road maintance costs, lower accidental deaths, lower DUIs (while maximizing drinking opportunities), lower parking issues (and the corrallary tighter population densities/resturant densities), more freedom for poor people. In fact, it's hard for me to think of a reason it shouldn't be 100% free.
There does seem to be a failure to recognize latency in the system.
But it's not "beyond 58%". The issue is that the pipeline is not being recognized. Once women are 50% of the boardroom, in say another generation, it will balance out. Now, what is in the pipeline at that point dictating the next 50 years, I have no idea.
I think of the numerous coded statements that Gingrich made, you chose a particularly poor example. After all, lines like that are commonly leveled against Democrats of all races. I'd further contend that the racism/sexism of politicians is difficult to parse from their public statements
But that's an irrelevant sideline. There is no doubt that on Slashdot, they are not taken seriously.
How many boys growing up were told
... "girls don't like bookish boys"?
Umm... all of them?
Maybe you grew up in an environment where no one said "you don't want to program, boys don't do that sort of thing".
And maybe he did. It's not that rare an attitude from the 1980's
Look, I get that being told you cannot do something sucks. But it sucks regardless of whether it's because it's unladylike, because you were born in the wrong caste, -or- because you don't want to be seen as a nerd and bullied. I don't know why we need to focus on easily identifiable groups of people who were statistically likely to be shit upon growing up. Why not help everyone who experienced that?
Hell, Google has enough data on everyone they could probably pick them out specifically and mail them an engraved invitation.
When was the last time you heard ANYONE speak of banning alcohol, certain types / amounts of alcohol, or alcohol in scary looking bottles ?
Well, 2 years ago. Still pops up every election however, so I imagine it will this time. Fortunately, last election we finally changed some of the anti-alcohol laws
There are still dry counties in the US. Heck, there are a lot of places, even whole states, in the US that ban alcohol sales on Sunday.
Most of these are in the South. But if you want a six-pack in Pennsylvania, you still have to order it "to-go" from a bar, and pay bar prices.
Remember, UNIX spelled backwards is XINU. -- Mt.
