1) Solar powered/Electric
2) No vendor to lock in
3) Goes before the fall.
1) Solar powered/Electric
2) No vendor to lock in
3) Goes before the fall.
And the outrage you had when the Obamas...
President Obama spent $85 million of taxpayer money on vacations in 8 years. A tidy sum but Trump is on pace to eclipse that total in less than a year. Trump has racked up north of $15 million in travel costs in two MONTHS. Spare me the bogus false equivalence.
Easy to evaluate.
If having a self digging shovel for $20,000 can get me more than $20,000 worth of work, it is worth it. Future value of the shovel is always unknown, so I'll take option one if the conditions apply.
They are written vague on purpose, because to be specific, would allow others to build upon your patent, and patent their improvements, locking you into a stale old way of building said invention, never able to improve it.
As a libertarian, I am all for the repealing of most patents, and the shortening of the term of protection. As it stands now, patents do not protect anyone from anything for very long. If something is popular, and patented, it will be cloned and ripped off anyway.
Patent abuse is like anything else the government does, it doesn't help many people, and hurts more people than it helps.
Don't want fraudulent items, make them in your own country.
You're either a (lame) troll, or utterly clueless about how quickly knock-offs are created based on nothing more than things like product photos on the designer's web site. All a knock-off company has to do is place an order for an item (and return it, later - free access!) in order to inspect it closely enough to make a sellable ripoff version. No, not every knock off (or even most of them) is made by scam artists at the factory making the original, and brand owners are increasingly able to police that since that practice became more prevalent over the last few years.
"You can't simply write a post and have it appear across the network which can make it difficult to get your voice heard."
So you're saying that this new system will enable people to vomit their meaningless content even further and wider? Reddit is already generally a toxic echo-chamber of superficial snowflakes CERTAIN that their opinion is the most important one. This will make it even worse.
I'm not sure leaving wealth in corporations is necessarily bad. That means the owners of the company, not the employees (including the executives) have it.
It's bad because if you don't tax it it becomes a vehicle for avoiding or deferring taxes. If I'm a wealthy guy and we don't tax the profits (or revenues) of my company then I have every incentive to use that company as a savings account for money I don't immediately need. Avoiding taxes without taxing corporations becomes trivial. If we don't tax those profits at either the individual level (like in S-Corps) or at the corporate level (like in C-Corps) then you will see a stampede of people using corporations to dodge taxes altogether to the detriment of us all. No wealthy person would ever have to pay a dime of tax if we didn't tax corporations and that's not a good thing at all.
And who owns the corporation? The investors. Who are they? Well, they could be anyone with a 401k or a pension. Or an employee. Or an executive. Or a C-level officer. Or a venture capitalist.
There is a huge difference between being a passive shareholder through a 401K and having enough of a stake in the company to actually influence company decisions. Technically both are "owners" of the company but their level of influence and control is far difference.
And while the 1% can try to get laws passed, we've seen money doesn't necessarily equal electoral victory.
No but a lack of money almost always ensures an electoral loss. Money doesn't cause a victory but it correlates heavily with one.
The problem with the 'buyer is always 200% correct' mentality at ebay can screw small sellers. Or if you only sell something once or twice a year. You're better off using craigslist.
Speaking from personal experience I would agree. Selling on eBay can be a risky pain in the butt. Never sell anything you can't afford to lose. You might have to take it back even if you do nothing wrong and the item is perfect so take that into account too.
I was a pretty big seller at one point and I can assure you that eBay isn't friendly with big sellers either. But being a small seller is definitely risky. One or two bad bits of feedback can really screw you hard.
I disagree. I sold something. The recipient said there was nothing in the box when he received it. Payment is taken back and I no longer have the item.
That happens sometimes but I'm talking about how buyers protect themselves, not sellers. You are basically backing up what I'm saying that there are more buyers who are crooks than sellers.
Best advice I can give for a seller is to document, document, document. Take pictures of the product going into the box and have witnesses. Make sure you have evidence of the weight of the package and the item. Only ship via traceable services. Use an escrow service if you are really worried or if the item is especially valuable (eBay offers one). Don't sell anything on eBay you cannot afford to lose. There is no way to perfectly keep all crooks from trying to scam you but I've sold probably 15000 items on eBay over the years and over 99% of the buyers are perfectly fine. We had trouble with about 1% of buyers (mostly hard to please people) and about 0.1% were people actually trying to rip us off.
Basically my reasoning is nothing like your emotional projection says it is. My reasoning is: "Taxes are regressive, all of them. The rich can avoid them, the poor doesn't pay them, and the middle class is stuck paying them". I personally don't pay any more taxes than I have to, to avoid going to jail. I expect everyone to do exactly the same thing.
This case (Apple/NZ Taxes) kind of proves the first two of the chain in reasoning. I expect a witty expletive riddled retort to follow.
The last 50-60 years of education have been committed to presenting 'alternative facts' - white people aren't the most important, the US and Europe aren't the most important and successful, minorities were meaningful to history, Columbus was a fucking asshole, women are important, homosexuals aren't sexual deviants, there is no absolute morality, babies are just chunks of tissue, etc.
I'm not disputing the accuracy of any of those, but one has to recognize that, as opposed to conventional wisdom at the time, all of those things were being consciously presented as alternative viewpoints to the established narratives.
So let's not pretend that we haven't been dogmatically acculturated to the presentation and acceptance of alternative truths for most of our lives.
...who would want a phone with NO bezel?
How do you hold the damned thing?
Seriously, if I'm showing him something on my phone, I have to treat elderly parents like toddlers with sticky fingers, holding it out of their reach because if they try to grab it I GUARANTEE they'll touch the screen and either cancel the video or somehow order me a new pair of shoes from Argentina. I don't know how.
The CIA presumably got the hacks from Russians, so that they would want the Russians to take the fall.
The CIA is actually working with affected companies, and they really can't disclose the vulnerabilities to the public, because they already know about them.
The CIA would love to undermine the public trust in WikiLeaks, so blaming the Kremlin for everything is logical (cold war mistrust)
The CIA would love to be able to shift the focus off their hacking skills and put it on the Kremlin.
OR Perhaps both the Kremlin and the CIA are both pissed at the other exposing them and are using public press to wage a war for the minds of citizens of the world. Meanwhile, I'm pissed that nobody seems to give a shit about doing the right thing, except it appears
you made a vague accusation that the Kremlin is influencing WikiLeaks. Do you have any evidence?
This is the second time I've seen this accusation, and the first time the guy offered no evidence, just that he "was Russian, and knows things". My guess, is that this is all part of the vague "Russians Hacked the US elections" thing, that was exposed as being based on vague accusations
It is actually more likely that it was Seth Rich that gave WikiLeaks at least part of the treasure used to upset the election. And having "Password" as your password
So far, vague allegations are all that is needed to upset people with Trump. The fact that he is playing the game back is popcorn worthy material. Nobody gives a shit when the Press lies with its unsubstantiated allegations, but when Trump does it, all hell breaks loose and his is "unhinged"!
How can you do 'New Math' problems with an 'Old Math' mind? -- Charles Schulz