Come up with whatever bullshit you like to fanboy Amazon as much as you need to. The facts don't care.
6,140 karma · joined January 21, 2010
Svalbard has a surprisingly large Thai population. I don't know about today, but at one point about ten percent of the population were Thai citizens.
Just because something is easy doesn't make it okay.
Would be nice but Amazon are quite keen on not letting that happen.
I apologise that none of the following words rhyme; rough, cough, plough, dough, lough, hiccough.
Is that so?
Yeah, could be. Plain white rice is a very cheap calorie sufficient diet. It's certainly cheaper than a healthy, nutritious diet.
But the point I'm going on to make isn't just about how stupid the cost of housing is; it's that the high cost of housing comes with extra costs that we might not even see.
How many people would be doing all sorts of neat things, some of which would genuinely bloom into real advances and ideas and genuine new wealth (by which I don't just mean an income; I mean the creation of wealth) if only they could afford some goddamn space in which to do it, without having to move so far from the existing life they have that pays the bills and keeps them alive and sane (by which I mean to suggest that not everyone has the luxury of moving to where there is cheaper space, if their job and support networks won't move too).
"You could say exactly the same thing about any form of encryption..."
That seems very untrue. I like my credit card details to be encrypted when I send them for the exact opposite of assisting cybercrime.
How about saying I have lots to hide.
I want to hide what I had for breakfast. I want to hide what book I'm reading. I want to hide what time I went to bed. I want to hide how many times I go to the gym each week. I have lots and lots to hide. I am not the property of the state and neither are my actions; I have lots to hide.
Yet here we are with sellers WANTING to sell their items at a lower price on places other than Amazon, but if they do, they'll go out of business. That doesn't sound pro-consumer.
I'm a consumer. I'd like to be able to buy items for the lowest price the seller wants to offer me. That's not happening in some cases because if they do, Amazon will exclude them and they'll go out of business. Yeah, definitely not pro-consumer. Pro-amazon, sure.
I see no reasonable way that a law saying caste-discrimination isn't ok will cause people to start discriminating by caste. I think that's utter nonsense and you're going to have to provide some kind of evidence for such an outlandish assertion.
I suspect, though, he doesn't sit quietly in the front row of his own concerts, so that's not really relevant to the point he makes.
The last batch of such manufacturing apprentices went through in the mid-eighties. They're just about all gone from the workplace.
Much as someone could interfere with use a car by locking something to it rendering it immobile, perhaps. If locking the boot to it isn't a crime under the very same law, unlocking it surely also isn't.
I do agree that the law is whatever a lawyer can successfully argue; I bet there are lawyers who can successfully argue that unlocking the boot isn't criminal trespass.
"A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she intentionally damages any property of another without consent of that other person and the damage thereto is $500.00 or less or knowingly and maliciously interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without consent of that person."
That sentence isn't the best, but I think it could be argued that it can be parsed as:
"A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she <does this thing> or knowingly and maliciously interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without consent of that person"
Unlocking it is arguably interfering with the use of the property of another person without consent; but is it malicious? Can't find a clear definition of "malicious" in Georgia law. I guess this is why lawyers get paid so much.
For cars registered before March 2001, it's a payment based on engine size (smaller or larger than 1.55 litres); couldn't tell if that's aimed at perceived wealth, pollution, or just leftover because that's how it was back when those cars were new.
March 2001 to March 2017, it's a payment based on CO2 emissions. Pollution based.
April 2017 to present day, it's a payment in the first year based on CO2 emissions, and each year after that a fixed rate based on fuel type only, EXCEPT that if the list price was over 40000 GBP in which case it's a bit higher for the 2nd to 6th years only. So pollution based for the first year, and then a short period of perceived wealth based, and then just a poll tax.
Come on UK, pick one! Are we taxing this based on pollution, apparent wealth or just plain poll?
Oh yes, also; if your vehicle was registered in 1983 or earlier, you can register it as exempt from this tax entirely. A UK nod to encourage classic car enthusiasts and people who are just really good at car maintenance, I guess!
It changes every so often. There was a time when this annual tax had nothing to do with CO2 emissions; that was judged to then be something that should be discouraged by means of this tax, so it changed.
If weight of vehicle is now a meaningful factor, an obvious step is to make this tax higher for heavier vehicles.
Different world. So much easier now.
And that was just the sound cards. Writing for different hardware became so much easier when OpenGl and DirectX came into being. Suddenly I just had to write to these APIs.
I think I'm disagreeing with you. Supporting multiple hardware configuration way back when was so much harder than doing it today.
Well, except to people who have a hard requirement that there never be this unpredictable, infrequent longer delay you mention.