That's not as random as letting me choose them! They had to be allowed onto the range, show ID, afford the gun, probably do a background check to get the gun unless they used a loophole (which usually requires some social capital).
I'm proposing the true proposal of many guns rights advocates: anyone might have a gun.
So let me choose the 50 and you give them guns! Why not?
Does that also apply to people living under oppressive governments? Anonymity can be a useful tool for sharing information that those in power don't want released, for example whistle blowing.
The only "system for payoff" I've seen with software patents is patent trolls. Are there cases of software inventors being rewarded for their software more fairly because they had a patent?
I think every every company I've worked at that had R&D had some kind of reward system for patents. Yes, most of the software patents were nonsense but those who have their names on it still did get paid.
In addition, software is also copyrightable, which makes much more sense than patents for protecting unauthorized use. IMO, patents for software should be mostly eliminated, and even copyright terms should be much shorter.
5 years full copyright, 5 years noncommercial unrestricted fair use with mandatory attribution, then straight to public domain. Berne Convention be damned, and multigenerational copyrights can go straight to hell as well.
Software patents are stupid, and even more so with AI soon to be able to take arbitrary compiled code and produce readable, well composed source in a target language with documentation and optimizations.
Studios and platforms and funds and giant corporations that "own" terabytes of IP are a cancer.
We're going to have to fix copyright. Until then, pirate everything.
A person born in a war torn country who is killed at a young age doesn't get much opportunity for good or bad choices. That's what I think of regarding bad luck.
Wouldn't a declining student population mean more money per student? And it seems like it would often (but not always) be cheaper to maintain existing buildings vs building new ones?
I'm also wondering how much of the new suburban buildings are financed with debt, and the costs just haven't really caught up to them yet.
I think it might be less about left/right and more about suburban and car culture vs. urban or rural. People living in the suburbs tend to drive everywhere anyway and perceive things outside of the car as dangerous.
> Tangentially, the author forgets that the reason cities like Baltimore adopted such policy was to encourage the bulldozing of uninhabitable structures lest they become less than legally inhabited.
This is interesting, do you have a source for this? Normally the assessors are tasked only with setting a value of a property and not with any type of policy related to rate or discount.
Ha ha, define similar. Real estate is the quintessential non fungible market. I guess my point is, look deeper than the surface at any aspect of this problem, and discover political decisions pretending to be objective ones.
reply