Depends on the income period -- I'd do 25% of daily income for a first offence.
TotallyHuman
I see. Would there also be an arc if you put your hand near the generator while it was running, then?
Does the human body rapidly discharge into air or something?
Okay, so you're insulated from ground. The generator charges you up. You are at the same charge as the generator. You let go of the generator. Why is there a potential difference?
Thing that confuses me is that when you let go, you should have the same charge as the generator. No charge difference, no arc. Unless I'm wrong about something, which I probably am (hence my confusion).
Why wouldn't the electrons go to ground through your body while you're touching it?
It's actually counterproductive! People who want to screen stuff about abuse from their internet experience can set up filters. Those filters are broken when you censor the relevant words!
Interesting. Unlike most measures, bike lanes are also a positive on their own, climate change or not. I assume this analysis doesn't include negative-cost solutions like carbon pricing.
That's not how exploitation works, not really. The rich will exploit as much as they can. Prices are already set to maximize profit. The rich can't pass higher prices along, because if they could charge more, they already would. Cutting taxes on big companies doesn't create jobs or lower prices -- and raising taxes won't destroy jobs or raise prices.
They're condemning microtransaction-based models, so it might not be bad... but I'll believe it when I see it.
The teacher was selling prints of the art for hundreds of dollars. The article doesn't say how much profit they made, but it could be substantial. There's also the privacy violation, and split amongst ten kids it's $160,000 per victim. Don't get me wrong, that's not nothing, but it seems reasonable for such a wilful and knowing violation of copyright, rights to one's image, and privacy rights. (Assuming all alleged facts are true.)
I don't like that the conservative party is using provincial funds to advertise for their political views -- especially with advertisements which aren't rigorously truthful. It feels slimy, but does anyone know if this is legal?