I read some of Chief Keef's lyrics. They seem to be about what we used to call, 'sex, drugs, and rock and roll'. Which the cops have been cracking down on since the 50's. The more things change ...
The bill wouldn't even been needed if the $$ from the gas tax were used solely to maintain roads. In a typical year only 65% of gas tax revenue goes to maintain roads and highways. The rest? Whatever pork and boondoggles congress can think up. I'm surprised it was only a thousand pages.
Drivers pay for the use of the cabs. Working through some of the numbers in the cited article, it look like the cab company gets a return of approx $100K per year (figuring 3 shifts at $100 per shift) in Boston where the medallions cost $625K for about a 16% return on the investment in the medallion.
There is also the value of the medallion as an investment, which has risen over 6000% since 1970 in NYC. In contrast the S&P has risen a bit of 1000% during the same period.
Medallions used to be an excellent investment. Which is what the hubbub is all about. It has nothing to do with safety, traffic congestion, etc. It's all about the Benjamins.
"Non-profit issue advocacy groups" is code for "it's against the law for me to bribe this candidate by giving them a gazillion dollar "campaign donation"
Not necessarily and absolutely not in all cases. You should have the right to donate to causes you believe in without fearing losing your job or protesters showing up at my house.
Re: Sorry to disturb Teamchaos's prejudices but....
Macht nichts. The ruling will probably get overturned anyway unless Hillary get's elected and appoints a few more lefty (since I can't say progressive or liberal) justices.
However, through 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court's rulings reviewed by the Supreme Court were affirmed only 20% of the time and reversed and or vacated 80% of the time; a rate substantially higher than the median reversal rate of 68.29% for the same period
In other words, this ruling would seem to force online retailers to treat the consuming public as though they were far more stupid than they actually are
The whole premise of progressive government is that people are stupid and need the government to save them from their stupidity. Does a ruling like this from the notoriously liberal 9th circuit court surprise anyone?
How many snippets of web site content do you read without actually clicking on the link to visit the web site?
That's probably the issue here. If I read a snippet and decide not to click the link, I've read content from the site without actually viewing the site and benefiting the site owner.
It benefits the site with the snippets, because I go there to decide which sites to visit - but the producer of the content receives no benefit unless I click to visit the site.
On the other hand, I wouldn't even know the site had the content available unless I saw the snippet. I'd never know to visit the site unless I was made aware of the content that it offered. So, aggregators provide free advertising for the sites with content.
I propose that all news aggregators charge an advertising fee to any site they advertise content for by posting snippets equal to any link tax imposed by the new law.
You don't want to provide me content (snippets) for free, I won't advertise your content for free.
I agree, anything that promotes Bernie is probably good for the GOP. The more democrats vote for Bernie in the primaries the more of them will stay home when it's time to vote for Hillary in the general.
Can you imagine if it were to end up Trump vs. Saunders? Populist right vs. populist left? That would be amazing to watch. Of course no matter who won, America would lose.
Who knew that the Europeans could come up with a version of net neutrality that makes sense. Prioritizing tele-surgery over email and cat videos, makes sense to me. Like the poster from NZ said, there are even cases where zero rating makes sense. The problem with net neutrality zealots is that they don't live in the real world, where some traffic prioritization makes sense.
On the post: Google Surprises Everyone By... Breaking Itself Up (Kinda)
https://copia.is/about/
On the post: Shop Owner Claims FBI Raided His Store Over His Offensive Murals, But Details Suggest Otherwise
On the post: Contrary To What You've Heard, TPP Will Undermine US Law -- Including Supreme Court Decisions
Re: Re:
On the post: Contrary To What You've Heard, TPP Will Undermine US Law -- Including Supreme Court Decisions
On the post: Police Shut Down Hologram Concert Of Rapper Because They Don't Like His Lyrics; Pretty Clear First Amendment Problem
On the post: Your Tax Dollars At Work: 1,000-Page Funding Bill Dropped On Senate Floor One Hour Before Vote
Source: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303815404577333631864470566
On the post: NYC Mayor De Blasio Realizes His Plan To Kneecap Uber Was A Disaster, Backs Down
Re: Economic model for cab medallions
Drivers pay for the use of the cabs. Working through some of the numbers in the cited article, it look like the cab company gets a return of approx $100K per year (figuring 3 shifts at $100 per shift) in Boston where the medallions cost $625K for about a 16% return on the investment in the medallion.
There is also the value of the medallion as an investment, which has risen over 6000% since 1970 in NYC. In contrast the S&P has risen a bit of 1000% during the same period.
Medallions used to be an excellent investment. Which is what the hubbub is all about. It has nothing to do with safety, traffic congestion, etc. It's all about the Benjamins.
On the post: I'll Put My Name On This Piece Declaring It Idiotic To Argue Against Anonymity Online
Re: Re:
Not necessarily and absolutely not in all cases. You should have the right to donate to causes you believe in without fearing losing your job or protesters showing up at my house.
On the post: I'll Put My Name On This Piece Declaring It Idiotic To Argue Against Anonymity Online
This sounds familiar, as in the only real reason the left wants non-profit issue advocacy groups to reveal their donors is for retaliation purposes.
If I can make an anonymous comment, shouldn't I be able to make an anonymous donation?
On the post: Senators Up In Arms Over State Department Plan To Deliberately Ignore Malaysian Mass Graves Just To Get TPP Deal
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Figures you'd have a 'red' hat to trade. It matches your political leanings. I'll bet you wear a Mao hat over your tin foil.
On the post: Senators Up In Arms Over State Department Plan To Deliberately Ignore Malaysian Mass Graves Just To Get TPP Deal
Re: Re:
On the post: 9th Circuit: Amazon's Search Results Too Useful, Must Be Trademark Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Sorry to disturb Teamchaos's prejudices but....
LOL Pragmatic. Insightful. Although I would probably reverse it to say "We don't really have a right...." since the repubs in power are mostly RHINOs.
On the post: 9th Circuit: Amazon's Search Results Too Useful, Must Be Trademark Infringement
Re: Sorry to disturb Teamchaos's prejudices but....
However, through 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court's rulings reviewed by the Supreme Court were affirmed only 20% of the time and reversed and or vacated 80% of the time; a rate substantially higher than the median reversal rate of 68.29% for the same period
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit
On the post: 9th Circuit: Amazon's Search Results Too Useful, Must Be Trademark Infringement
Not surprising
The whole premise of progressive government is that people are stupid and need the government to save them from their stupidity. Does a ruling like this from the notoriously liberal 9th circuit court surprise anyone?
On the post: EU Politicians Try To Create A New 'Link Tax' To Protect Newspapers Who Don't Like Sites Linking For Free
Re:
The entire argument that news aggregators should pay a link tax is petty. I was just taking things to their absurd but logical conclusion.
On the post: EU Politicians Try To Create A New 'Link Tax' To Protect Newspapers Who Don't Like Sites Linking For Free
How many snippets do you read?
That's probably the issue here. If I read a snippet and decide not to click the link, I've read content from the site without actually viewing the site and benefiting the site owner.
It benefits the site with the snippets, because I go there to decide which sites to visit - but the producer of the content receives no benefit unless I click to visit the site.
On the other hand, I wouldn't even know the site had the content available unless I saw the snippet. I'd never know to visit the site unless I was made aware of the content that it offered. So, aggregators provide free advertising for the sites with content.
I propose that all news aggregators charge an advertising fee to any site they advertise content for by posting snippets equal to any link tax imposed by the new law.
You don't want to provide me content (snippets) for free, I won't advertise your content for free.
On the post: Another GOP Candidate Indirectly Promotes Bernie Sanders By Not Getting Music Cleared With Artist
Re: But Bernie is no direct competitor...
Can you imagine if it were to end up Trump vs. Saunders? Populist right vs. populist left? That would be amazing to watch. Of course no matter who won, America would lose.
On the post: FBI & Homeland Security Now 0 For 41 In Predicting Imminent Terrorist Attacks On The US
Hmmmm.....
Just a coincidence I'm sure. Move along nothing to see here. Nothing "nefarious" going on according to Homeland Security.
On the post: City Claims It Will Take 9,000 Hours And $79,000 To Fulfill Gawker's Request Emails Related To Abusive Police Officer
Re:
My first thought was that I'd donate to that, second thought was that they'd still be waiting 2 years for an answer.
On the post: EU Moves To Create Internet Fast Lanes, Pretends It's Net Neutrality By Redefining Basic Words
Who knew
Next >>