Slashdot Mirror

+1 pedantic
Contextually, you are correct (generally "its" is primarily classified as a possessive pronoun, though in the case above you're right). Still, some would prefer the term "possessive determiner". http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/possdeterterm.htm

Here's a dirty little secret about SSN's. They were never intended to be used as unique identifiers. In fact, it says on the card For social security only, not to be used for identification. Even more, they are not secure in the least, up until recently you could get the first 3-5 numbers just by knowing a little bit about the person, see ID by state of issue, and it's pretty simple to identify the group number as well. Last 4? those were sequential. Basically, they were never designed to be secure, and now we have to treat them as such. Better keep your birthplace/birthday secret too.

Here's a dirty little secret about SSN's. They were never intended to be used as unique identifiers. In fact, it says on the card For social security only, not to be used for identification. Even more, they are not secure in the least, up until recently you could get the first 3-5 numbers just by knowing a little bit about the person, see ID by state of issue, and it's pretty simple to identify the group number as well. Last 4? those were sequential. Basically, they were never designed to be secure, and now we have to treat them as such. Better keep your birthplace/birthday secret too.

First of all, according to nonpartisan estimates, the ACA will reduce the deficit

Umm, I'll believe it when I see it. So far, it's added over 1.7 trillion in spending and put a severe crimp on business with new costs and regulations (such as mandatory electronic requirements). Or are you one of those "it's budget neutral" morons, simply because they embedded new taxes in it to "pay for it"? Believe it or not "new taxes + more spending + a failure to fix real spending growth problems" can very easily cause long term deleterious effects (some nonpartisan sources say the current continued economic malaise is a partial result of ACA).

If that happens, how could we possibly solve such a problem? Could it be that we could...pass a law raising taxes?

We already did that. Many times. Once during the Obamacare passage. Another time in December, on "rich" people. And as much as you like to believe that we can just endlessly raise taxes to solve our problems, it does actually have an effect on the economy.

From their current historically low levels, particularly as a fraction of GDP? And particularly on the super-wealthy?

Highly misleading. Rates on the "super wealthy" are far from historically low. The only people currently benefiting from historically low taxes are the poor. Taxes on everybody else are around "average" historical values: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/tax-facts-lowest-rates-in-30-years/ (and that article was before the December tax hike)

And since you aren't advocating raising taxes on everyone (perish the thought), instead of only on the people you envy, I'm afraid your statement is false. Additionally, raising taxes on the super-wealthy can't possibly bring in enough money to cover our government's level of spending (again, per unbiased sources: http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/01/news/economy/income_tax_deficit/)

If I'm reading you right, what you're actually saying is that the ACA will cost money to implement,

That isn't a "maybe", that's a fact. And it's predicted cost is beyond estimates (with most of the heavy spending not even beginning until 2014). The belief that it's going to be a net deficit savings requires not only outright lies that try to use tax increases as "savings" but also lots of speculation (since it takes into account a metric ton of complete unknowns and tries to use them as "cost savings"): http://useconomy.about.com/od/healthcarereform/a/Cost-of-Obamacare.htm

If you were 100% genuine about discussing the "cost" of something, that discussion should be held in a vacuum (namely, what I spend on the program vs what costs the program reduces). You can't chalk in additional revenue from additional taxes and try to pretend the program isn't costing 1.7 trillion in additional spending. At best, the net effect of the program is "1.7 trillion in spending minus the cost savings of the four things it's actually reducing: drug subsidies to wealthy/Hospital DSH Payments/Medicare Payments/Medicare Advantage Payments". Everything else is smoke and mirrors. Oh, and the net effect IS a deficit increase, based on those numbers. And it's a loss that we believe does nothing to address the real problem of high healthcare costs, and will likely continue to balloon in costs.

Doing stuff for people costs money. Helping poor people costs money.

And we'd love to see healthcare reform, reform that would actually help people. ACA does not. It passes the buck, shifts around costs, and tries to hide its massive spending behind tax increases. In reality, nothing has been don

actually... http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/historicdocuments/a/lincolnhabeas.htm

"Yep. That goes a long way towards explaining the complete lack of innovation in the computer industry. Basically nothing has improved or even changed in the last 30 years."

More true than one might think at first: http://developers.slashdot.org/story/13/08/09/1641249/back-to-the-future-of-programming

See also:
"The Real Computer Revolution Hasn't Happened Yet" by Alan Kay
http://www.vpri.org/pdf/m2007007a_revolution.pdf
http://archive.cra.org/Activities/grand.challenges/kay.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKg1hTOQXoY

Personally, cross-platform reasonable speedy VisualWorks Smalltalk from the 1990s in many ways still has not been surpassed (except in the sense it was not free and open source and somewhat lesser stuff like Python and now Java is). The Newton's 1990s view of a PDA with integrated soups of data is still (in some ways) advanced beyond Android. Or from:
http://inventors.about.com/od/istartinventions/a/internet.htm
"Vannevar Bush first proposed the basics of hypertext in 1945 [in "As We May Think"]. Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web, HTML (hypertext markup language), HTTP (HyperText Transfer Protocol) and URLs (Universal Resource Locators) in 1990."
Project Xanadu was around in the 1980s doing Hypertext, inspired by Theodore Sturegon's 1950 short story "The Skills of Xanadu".

Don't confuse the eventual implementation of part of old ideas (like Kay's 1970s DynaBook vision being realized in part in today's laptops and smartphones) with the notion of conceptual progress.

Even much of robotics and AI is just old ideas finally being more workable with better hardware.
http://www.transhumanist.com/volume1/moravec.htm
"The stupendous growth and competitiveness of the computer industry is one reason. A less appreciated one is that intelligent machine research did not make steady progress in its first fifty years, it marked time for thirty of them! Though general computer power grew a hundred thousand fold from 1960 to 1990, the computer power available to AI programs barely budged from 1 MIPS during those three decades. "

Still, it is also true there are no doubt many innovations now lurking here or there for which we have not yet hear much of. As WIlliam Gibson said:
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/681-the-future-is-already-here-it-s-just-not-evenly
"The future is already here â" it's just not evenly distributed."

Much of what young kids are interested in is what they have seen in movies, read in stories, or played with in games, and so on. True, they may sometimes put things together in new ways. But its still very often old, old ideas they are working with.

This isn't necessarily a problem. The biggest thing the luddites overlook is that wealth can increase even while wages decrease. Too many people put too much emphasis on money and not on actual purchasing power or wealth. Worse is they flat out confuse money and wealth, and generally think of them to be one and the same (they aren't at all the same.)

The whole point of having machines do labor is that now a person no longer has to do it. This means the job can be done cheaper. The end result is a less expensive product, which may even be of superior quality (depends on the good of course.) Remember that wealth isn't money. Material goods (including those made by machines) are wealth.

So now that we don't have phone operators anymore, your phone bill can be cheaper (I don't know about anybody else, but my cell phone with unlimited long distance to anywhere in the US/Canada now costs me less than my landline cost back in the 90's and earlier. I pay t-mobile $116 a month for 5 lines, coming to about $23 per line. Would be a lot cheaper if my state didn't add 18% to the bill in taxes.)

In the early 1900's, a "computer" was a person. Yes, they actually had highly skilled jobs where people had to crunch numbers given to them and make sure that they gave accurate results. Nowadays when somebody says "computer", we think of something else entirely. If you really think technology kills jobs, then you should probably start petitioning congress to ban computers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_computer

One of the most life-critical items is following this trend as well: Food today is already cheaper than it has ever been, and world hunger is at an all time low. Moreover, the poor are more wealthy now than they've ever been (again, material goods.) Recall in the 80's how you had to be one rich fatcat to own a 45" tv, a car phone, and a personal computer. Now today my 47" TV is a lot better than those and pretty much anybody can afford one, I have a cell phone which is better than a car phone in every way and even costs less, and personal computers are so cheap they are practically given away. You can throw me numbers all you want about how we have a declining middle class because some percent income figure on a spreadsheet a point lower today, but that does absolutely not a damn thing to indicate how much wealth the person actually has. My income could drop $100 (whether by inflation or whatever) yet my purchasing power can still increase if the things I buy are becoming cheaper anyways. However these spreadsheets still say "you're poorer" when the reality is the opposite.

Personally I'd prefer making $10 an hour and having my lunch cost $4 rather than making $20 an hour and having my lunch cost $20. I think that if more people understood this, we would probably be better off because we could start eliminating things that contribute to the later scenario (e.g. tariffs) without all of the political drama. (See http://economics.about.com/cs/taxpolicy/a/tariffs.htm for how tariffs make the stuff you buy needlessly cost more, and in fact cause higher unemployment.)

I work for a F500 right now and when I tried to bring up my own concerns with the security measures I was told to implement, I was met with blank stares, followed by, "So, how long will it take for you to [implement the flawed measures]?"

Because I don't care, I am moving forward with implementing the flawed measures. God help them if a real hacker wants to pwn them and appropriate their data.

Maybe your purchasing power has gone down by a nickel but the purchasing power of the economy is the same, maybe greater. If you would have put that nickel into your coin jar to languish, then the tariff increased the economy by five cents. That nickel is still there, now in the pocket of a sockmaker or a tax enforcer or a recipient of government services.

No, it does not, namely because it reduces sales. That is what the purpose of a tariff is - to reduce sales of foreign goods. In the process, it also reduces the sales of domestic goods for the same reason that it reduces the sales of foreign goods. It doesn't suddenly make the domestic goods more attractive, rather the domestic goods tend to rise to about the same price level of the foreign goods after the tariff is added. Thus we end up with this:

- The demand for socks (both foreign and domestic) falls.
- Since fewer people buy socks, fewer people are spending money.
- Fewer people spending money means that e.g. distributors, retailers, shippers (well, the whole supply chain really) now have less money to spend.
- This ripples across the rest of the economy, though in ways that are difficult to quantify or realize.

Other things to consider are the following:

- Socks are a form of wealth (money is NOT wealth) and since fewer people have them, they are less wealthy.
- Generally that nickel means a lot more to a poor person than a rich person, so the rich are only marginally affected.

I just don't think it's true that "it's already known that tariffs only serve to damage the local economy". If that were true then there would be no tariffs anywhere in the world because nobody would have an incentive to have one. Every local economy would maximize itself by eliminating tariffs, but that isn't so, so I don't think the premise is right.

You'd think that, but people don't realize that, hence we have them. Case in point: Your first paragraph. Have a look here:

The essay on Free Trade at The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics looks at the issue of international trade policy. In the essay, Alan Blinder states that "one study estimated that in 1984 U.S. consumers paid $42,000 annually for each textile job that was preserved by import quotas, a sum that greatly exceeded the average earnings of a textile worker. That same study estimated that restricting foreign imports cost $105,000 annually for each automobile worker's job that was saved, $420,000 for each job in TV manufacturing, and $750,000 for every job saved in the steel industry."

In the year 2000 President Bush raised tariffs on imported steel goods between 8 and 30 percent. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy cites a study which indicates that the tariff will reduce U.S. national income by between 0.5 to 1.4 billion dollars. The study estimates that less than 10,000 jobs in the steel industry will be saved by the measure at a cost of over $400,000 per job saved. For every job saved by this measure, 8 will be lost.

The cost of protecting these jobs is not unique to the steel industry or to the United States. The National Center For Policy Analysis estimates that in 1994 tariffs cost the U.S. economy 32.3 billion dollars or $170,000 for every job saved. Tariffs in Europe cost European consumers $70,000 per job saved while Japanese consumers lost $600,000 per job saved through Japanese tariffs.

http://economics.about.com/cs/taxpolicy/a/tariffs.htm

When somebody sees an industry threatened by foreign competition, a tariff is the first idea that comes to their mind. Most people don't actually realize that the US is still by far the largest exporter of goods, and is second only to China in manufacturing. They also don't realize that we don't depend on tariffs to be this way, nor will tariffs ever help us maintain it. Some people subscribe to this idea that the US is completely self sustaining an

Sony did this back in the 90s and may have been the template for Microsoft's success.

Sony stumbled their way into the market because Nintendo were dumbasses [1].

I'd hardly say Microsoft's "success" in console gaming is something anyone should replicate. They haven't posted a net profit. Their new console is being hailed as either an NSA or advertiser's wet dream, AND costs more.

They might be able to power through this by sheer might, but what company wants to burn that amount of capital and goodwill just for marketshare?

[1] http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bl_playstation.htm

> No, it doesn't. It counts the number of visitors of a
> particular web site that have content strings that
> claim they are using an iPad.

Yes! I'm sure TONS of people are using Android tablets or Surfaces but changing their user agents to make it look like they're using iPads. Because then it will look like iPads are more popular and then... sorry, I couldn't think of a single reason that anyone would do that. Someone who loves Apple but is forced to use a competing tablet by their employer? Seriously, I got nothing. Get a better version of a page? If anything, you change your UA to say "something on Desktop", not "something on iPad".

Even if some people are doing it, I can't imagine it's enough to throw off the numbers. "Number of people setting non-iPads to send 'iPad' in their user agent string" divided by "about 90 million" equals a very, very small number.

Are you sure you're not confusing CO2 poisoning with CO poisoning? http://chemistry.about.com/od/medicalhealth/a/Carbon-Dioxide-Poisoning.htm
The latter is HIGHLY unlikely.

a quibble: "_Better_ is the enemy of good enough." From the Russian proverb; they got it from the Chinese, which I don't remember.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Gorshkov ,although
Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien. Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique depends on how one wishes to interpret "le mieux";
http://french.about.com/od/grammar/a/meilleur-mieux.htm provides some discussion.

[sigh] The Gorshkov quote was popularized by Clancy, but I came across it some years before (not from Polmer) in another book, but I no longer have it, and recall is not dredging the memory. A bad day for memory, sorry. I wish to hell that I could recall the translation of the Chinese saying, it's elegant. Please, do go on.

---

I figure a metal detector or so for firearms, strengthened and locked cockpit doors and a sky marshal should be sufficient, else disallow flammables after the gate as well. The current TSA crap came from scared, weak-minded politicians who shirked leadership (and possibly those with the hidden agenda of a police state.) All it would've taken, beyond proposing the above changes, is for a few of the heavies in House and Senate to have stood up in front of the CNN cameras and flipped the bird to "the terrorists", showing some spine. Dean Ing in Soft Targets discusses some other approaches, humor being one - basically, ridicule the bastards, make 'em a laughingstock.

"... Instead, it is still a higher priced product, although not nearly as pricey as the 5S, and the 4S is free with contract."

Sure, it's more expensive, but look at all of the new features it comes with.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/04/iphone-biometrics/

It sounds like they combined the once-external system that AOptix was selling to the government, combined it with some old Sony technology ( http://netsecurity.about.com/b/2007/08/30/new-sony-rootkit-found-on-usb-flash-drive.htm ), miniaturized/integrated them and gave it all to you for a modest price increase. You never have to type a password again, nor do you have to go to jail to get finger-printed. As an added bonus, the 911 operator will know it's actually you calling for help!

The official language of China is Standard Chinese aka Mandarin. The official language of the United States is... oh wait, there isn't one.

Back in 1790s there was a crucial vote in Pennsylvania.

Had the German won that vote, the school kids in the United States of America would have been taught German, instead of the Queen's language.

http://german.about.com/library/weekly/aa010820b.htm

Maybe I just need to poison the data some more.

Couldn't hurt. Although I always use completely fake details when they don't already have at least some information on me already. A good source for fake ID information that will pass most sanity checks like zip code and address combinations or state and area codes is Fake Name Generator. As for the debt collectors, ask them to provide information concerning the debt, such as when it was first incurred, without giving out or confirming any information about yourself. If they refuse then tell them that the person they're looking for cannot be reached at your number or address, which is the truth in your case right? If they disclose the age of the debt and it's beyond the statute of limitations for collection you wouldn't be obligated to pay even if it was your debt and it can be a violation of law for them to continue calling depending upon where you live. Finally, you should note the number that they're calling from so that you can add it to your blocked call list on your phone account. The caller id number might be spoofed, but it couldn't hurt. While your at it you should also set your phone account to 'unblock or I won't take your call'. That way, you don't get 'private call' in the caller ID if they actually want to ring through.

http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/nova.asp

http://spanish.about.com/cs/culture/a/chevy_nova.htm

Mankins worked on some of this earlier when he was at NASA; I seem to recall he was even paid to write up a study. I expect it would be easy enough to find out at least ballpark figure. Or you could ask him, or visit the website. A start:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/716070main_Mankins_2011_PhI_SPS_Alpha.pdf

The NASA grant was NNX11AR34G; I don't know offhand how one would find out how much that cost taxpayers.

A related bit, from http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/nasa_budget_cost.htm

"A 2002 study by Professor H.R. Hertzfeld of George Washington University showed there is a large return to the companies work with NASA on its research contracts. These companies are able to commercialize the products developed and market them. The 15 companies studied received $1.5 billion in benefits from a NASA R&D investment of $64 million."

The link for the 2002 study is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14983842
I didn't look to see how one would get the full report. Further, this relates just to life sciences tech transfer.

From the same site,

"A report by the Space Foundation estimated that NASA contributed $180 billion to the economy in 2005. More than 60% of this came from commercial goods and services created by companies related from space techonology. This means that each dollar of NASA spending creates $10 of benefit in the economy. NASA spending created the satellite communications which allows not only radio and television, but also telemedicine, GPS navigation, weather forecasts, and defense."

The link given goes here, to a press release (and not to the mentioned one from the Space Foundation),

http://useconomy.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=useconomy&cdn=newsissues&tm=544&f=10&su=p284.13.342.ip_p504.6.342.ip_&tt=11&bt=6&bts=6&zu=http%3A//www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/sep/HQ_07193_Griffin_lecture.html

For the pdf of Griffin's speech,

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/189537main_mg_space_economy_20070917.pdf

or for text-only, http://useconomy.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=useconomy&cdn=newsissues&tm=544&f=10&su=p284.13.342.ip_p504.6.342.ip_&tt=11&bt=6&bts=6&zu=http%3A//www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/sep/HQ_07193_Griffin_lecture.html

One may object that Griffin as then-head of NASA was tooting his own horn but there's no automatic reason to doubt the figures or conclusions - there are plenty of people who spend time looking for errors and outright lies, especially from NASA.

Mankins worked on some of this earlier when he was at NASA; I seem to recall he was even paid to write up a study. I expect it would be easy enough to find out at least ballpark figure. Or you could ask him, or visit the website. A start:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/716070main_Mankins_2011_PhI_SPS_Alpha.pdf

The NASA grant was NNX11AR34G; I don't know offhand how one would find out how much that cost taxpayers.

A related bit, from http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/nasa_budget_cost.htm

"A 2002 study by Professor H.R. Hertzfeld of George Washington University showed there is a large return to the companies work with NASA on its research contracts. These companies are able to commercialize the products developed and market them. The 15 companies studied received $1.5 billion in benefits from a NASA R&D investment of $64 million."

The link for the 2002 study is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14983842
I didn't look to see how one would get the full report. Further, this relates just to life sciences tech transfer.

From the same site,

"A report by the Space Foundation estimated that NASA contributed $180 billion to the economy in 2005. More than 60% of this came from commercial goods and services created by companies related from space techonology. This means that each dollar of NASA spending creates $10 of benefit in the economy. NASA spending created the satellite communications which allows not only radio and television, but also telemedicine, GPS navigation, weather forecasts, and defense."

The link given goes here, to a press release (and not to the mentioned one from the Space Foundation),

http://useconomy.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=useconomy&cdn=newsissues&tm=544&f=10&su=p284.13.342.ip_p504.6.342.ip_&tt=11&bt=6&bts=6&zu=http%3A//www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/sep/HQ_07193_Griffin_lecture.html

For the pdf of Griffin's speech,

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/189537main_mg_space_economy_20070917.pdf

or for text-only, http://useconomy.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=useconomy&cdn=newsissues&tm=544&f=10&su=p284.13.342.ip_p504.6.342.ip_&tt=11&bt=6&bts=6&zu=http%3A//www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/sep/HQ_07193_Griffin_lecture.html

One may object that Griffin as then-head of NASA was tooting his own horn but there's no automatic reason to doubt the figures or conclusions - there are plenty of people who spend time looking for errors and outright lies, especially from NASA.

Mankins worked on some of this earlier when he was at NASA; I seem to recall he was even paid to write up a study. I expect it would be easy enough to find out at least ballpark figure. Or you could ask him, or visit the website. A start:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/716070main_Mankins_2011_PhI_SPS_Alpha.pdf

The NASA grant was NNX11AR34G; I don't know offhand how one would find out how much that cost taxpayers.

A related bit, from http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/nasa_budget_cost.htm

"A 2002 study by Professor H.R. Hertzfeld of George Washington University showed there is a large return to the companies work with NASA on its research contracts. These companies are able to commercialize the products developed and market them. The 15 companies studied received $1.5 billion in benefits from a NASA R&D investment of $64 million."

The link for the 2002 study is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14983842
I didn't look to see how one would get the full report. Further, this relates just to life sciences tech transfer.

From the same site,

"A report by the Space Foundation estimated that NASA contributed $180 billion to the economy in 2005. More than 60% of this came from commercial goods and services created by companies related from space techonology. This means that each dollar of NASA spending creates $10 of benefit in the economy. NASA spending created the satellite communications which allows not only radio and television, but also telemedicine, GPS navigation, weather forecasts, and defense."

The link given goes here, to a press release (and not to the mentioned one from the Space Foundation),

http://useconomy.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=useconomy&cdn=newsissues&tm=544&f=10&su=p284.13.342.ip_p504.6.342.ip_&tt=11&bt=6&bts=6&zu=http%3A//www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/sep/HQ_07193_Griffin_lecture.html

For the pdf of Griffin's speech,

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/189537main_mg_space_economy_20070917.pdf

or for text-only, http://useconomy.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=useconomy&cdn=newsissues&tm=544&f=10&su=p284.13.342.ip_p504.6.342.ip_&tt=11&bt=6&bts=6&zu=http%3A//www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/sep/HQ_07193_Griffin_lecture.html

One may object that Griffin as then-head of NASA was tooting his own horn but there's no automatic reason to doubt the figures or conclusions - there are plenty of people who spend time looking for errors and outright lies, especially from NASA.

Don't get me wrong, its not like a user replaceable battery is the ultimate selling tool. To me it does show they are more willing to work with their users. Everyone seems to want to make disposible stuff these days.
How? On the original white nooks you can just pop the back off. This is the same way you install a microSD card. The back isn't even held on with screws (just clips).
http://portables.about.com/od/ebookreasers/ss/Nook-Battery-Removal-How-To-Change-Battery-Of-Barnes-And-Noble-Nook.htm

The 50 states are mostly too small to exist on their own as viable nations (except for California and Texas) without being part of some kind of union, the way small European countries have banded together into a union to increase their trading and economic power and reduce the frictional losses of having separate currencies and economies and having trade barriers.

The population of the US in 1790 was 3,929,214.

There is plenty of alternative medicine that works just fine; in some cases it works better. I used to take 150mg of Zantac twice a day due to GERD. I needed it every day for years. At some point someone turned me on to Cayenne pepper tablets. I took them before meals for a short period of time and guess what ... I didn't need Zantac anymore. This is but one of hundreds of examples. Evidently you weren't aware that a great deal of medicine is created by taking a chemical that occurs in nature, tweaking the molecule so they can patent it, and charging your insurance company an arm and a leg for it (excuse the pun.) Off the top of my head, one medicine that is a direct derivative of naturally occurring chemicals is Aspirin.

You don't need physical presence in a state to be considered as having a nexus in that state and subject to collecting taxes.

if you'd been getting $1000/week, your UI would be ~ $620/week.

The maximum weekly benefits varies by State. From that point of view, your example would only work in Massachusetts. All other States max out way before that. http://jobsearch.about.com/od/unemployment/a/weekly-unemployment-benefits.htm

I am all for alternative fuels, but using a food source to ALSO be a fuel source is stooooooo-pid. Have you seen what happened to the price of corn since using it for ethanol took off? Great for Monsanto and ADM, but not for people that eat corn. Sugarcane is a horrible crop for the environment, let alone the impact using it for ethanol has on sugar prices for human consumption.

AC you replied to...

What if you have an open marriage?

I'm going to be a bit of a jerk (just for a few lines) here, but bear with me, since I want this to sink in. What are you, an idiot? You aren't asking about open marriages, you're asking about fucking adultery. It's illegal, get it through your head. Your ideals do not apply to the law any more than they apply to the law in Utah.

They don't care if /you/ have an open marriage, this is moral code and law you waived other rights in.

Ten years ago they could kick you out for being openly gay. How do you think they felt about adultery ? "Open marriage my ass" -- that's another word for 'sinner', now get back in line with the standards from 1950 before we discharge you instead of just cutting your pay for a month.

Here, let me clear it up some...

"In the United States, laws vary from state to state. In 2012, adultery was a criminal offense in 23 states."

--
Source: wikipedia (adultery)

Article 133 is titled... "Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman"

conduct violative of this article is action or behavior in an official capacity which, in dishonoring or disgracing the person as an officer, seriously compromises the officerâ(TM)s character as a gentleman, or action or behavior in an unofficial or private capacity which, in dishonoring or disgracing the officer personally, seriously compromises the personâ(TM)s standing as an officer

This specifically includes for example, association with known prostitutes, and anything nebulously "dishonorable" -- particularly if it can reflect on those around you.

Don't make the mistake of believing your modern ideals about sexuality apply to the military.

Here's article 134 (Adultery)

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm1342.htm

Allowed punishment includes imprisonment for up to a year.

So in answer to your question -- they can dishonorably discharge you, and lock you up for a year without pay. Assuming they don't add more crimes onto it (which they will if you don't take the discharge and shut up).

That your SO is okay with it just further negatively reflects upon your character and the character of those you associate with.

Justice != Vengeance.

Vengeance is when a person is punished for something he did without regard of what the person will be be transformed into or how it affects the rest of his life.. Example. Person with a $100k salary gets caught buying cocaine for personal use. Person gets sentenced to prison for 1-4 years. Person gets out and have lost his job, residence and maybe family.

Justice is trying to make sure that the person will never do anything similar again while still allowing the offender to return to be a productive member of society.

Example:
Person X goes out and steals a car-radio because he has no money and no education so he can get a job.
Vengeance: Putting him in jail for 2 years and then letting him out without any real help.
Justice: Putting him in jail for 2 years where he will be forced to go to school so when he gets out he will be able to get a job and return as a productive person.

There is a big problem in most countries, but the US is the worst, in prisons and that is that you put young people with no previous criminal history together with people that have done things for many years.. This just causes the young non-experienced criminals to gang up with the experienced criminals and it just results in more crime.

1. House-arrest. Person can go to work and live his life, but is severely restricted.
2. Minimum security prison. Allowed to go to work during the day and must pay rent to the prison.
3. Medium security prison. Companies are allowed to have factories in or around the prisons. Salary 30% lower than anyone outside of prison. Must pay rent to the prison.
4. High security prison. Companies are allowed to have factories in the prison. Salary is 30% lower than anyone outside the prison. Must pay rent to the prison.

Rent should be pure cost of running the prison and divided by number of cells.

Anyone in 2-4 must save 25% of their disposable income for when they are released. If they have money to live for 1-2 years after getting out they don't really need to steal stuff and can actually have some time to try and find a real job.

So taking the above example here too:
Person with a $100k salary gets caught buying cocaine for personal use. Person goes to court and is found guilty. Judge looks at the crime and sees that it was only for personal use and the person have never been to jail before. Person gets fined (say 10% of his yearly salary) and sentenced to 3 month's of house-arrest.

Ie, the first thing was to scare the person. If he keeps repeating this he will then face higher fines + higher on the scale of the prison-system.

The thing when doing it this was is that you scare people away from some things and it also makes the first-time offenders not to associate with repeat-offenders on their first round. Second thing here is that if you have a % scale of fines it will be much more in line with what people can pay... If you have a person earning $30k per year a $10k fine is really allot. If you have a person with $150k per year $10k is not that much..

While 1 out of every 142 Americans is now actually in prison, 1 out of every 32 of us is either in prison or on parole from prison, according to yet another report on Americans behaving badly from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Go read : http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/aainjail.htm

Seems to me these guys would be the new Douglas Engelbart, inventor of the mouse or E.A. Johnson, and Hurst, inventors of the Touchscreen rather than likening them to the twin gods of Woz & Jobs, who really invented nothing.

If it works we may eventually see the demise of keyboards and mice.

They should buy Lisa Simpson's tiger repelling rocks. There is some point where you should just concede that can't be all idiocy and should be some malice in that fallacy generating machine that are politics.

Full disclosure: as a long time Apple and Linux user, I'm completely new to the whole Surface thing. I don't think I've ever even seen one, Pro or RT. But I too have also read that the Surface Pro seems like a nice little machine, and can do things the ipad can't do as easily because of the I/O and display ports, whereas the ipad can give you cellular data if you need that and the resolution on the display is higher. In fact, the two machines seem to be broadly comparable:

http://ipad.about.com/od/ipad_competition/a/Microsoft-Surface-Pro-Vs-Ipad-4-Comparison-Chart.htm

So why the abysmal sales of the Surface Pro? My guess would also be the price point, Apple has a low price point ($499 for retina display, but the ipad 2 is only $399) that you can expand the storage in it to get high storage (up to 128 Gb at $799 with cellular is $929) or the cellular stuff. MS put out the RT at a low price point too ($349) with the Pro as its higher end model (64 Gb for $899, 128 Gb for $999). So the MS low end is lower than the ipad and the high end is higher.

Could it be that the RT is too limited in terms of what you can do with it, and that Apple got people to buy ipads because they made all their apps for the iphone immediately available on the ipad, so people knew what they were getting?

But giving those documents to the media is tantamount to giving it to the world any fool would know that. You would have to be mind numbingly stupid to not know that all hostile nations would instantly have access to the full list of documents if you give them to ANY media source.

Luckily for the world, your paranoid fantasies do not match reality. Disclosing to a reliable media source is the time-honored way of responsibly reporting government malfeasance. In your fantasy world where a responsible press does not exist then there is no way for the press to act as a check on the government because only "stupid fools" would trust the press.

My personal answer is no, and that any one who acts on that is too far gone and that they need criminally punished. And that is the judgment call we as a society have made.

I'm glad you agree with Manning on this essential point. What we should do about the war crimes and government malfeasance he disclosed is a judgment call that we as a society have to make. It is impossible for us to make the call unless some brave soul reports the crimes. You want war crimes and atrocities to be committed by your government, with your tax dollars, in your name, fine. I DON'T. But unless someone like Manning exposes these crimes then I have no choice in the matter and we as a society have no choice in the matter.

Laws are in place so that, that fringe element is not allowed to run amok. Laws are in place so that, that fringe element is not allowed to run amok.

Exactly! When a fringe element has run amok and is breaking laws and committing war crimes with impunity, someone brave soul has to report it. That's what Manning did. In your twisted, paranoid, fantasy version of reality there is no way for someone to responsibly report war crimes because even the most responsible disclosure is stupid and foolish.

If you were a soldier and you witnessed flagrant war crimes and violations of the Constitution by your superiors, what would you do? Would you uphold your oath to support and defend the Constitution by "stupidly and foolishly" reporting the war crimes to the news media or would you take the Nuremberg Defense and turn a blind eye to the war crimes all around you?

Every year, the med school cohort is about 20,000 per year (~80K in school at any given time https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/). The total bill for this (assuming your $250K/student/year) sums to $20 billion / year. In 2011, total healthcare spending was $2.7 trillion (http://go.cms.gov/13juHDi).

Actually, it's closer to $250,000 per student over four years.

http://gradschool.about.com/od/medicalschool/f/MedSchoolCost.htm

Question: How Much Does Medical School Cost?

Medical school can be expensive and therefore, it would be beneficial to consider the cost of med school before applying.

Answer: According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, the median tuition in 2010-2011 was $28,685 at a public institution and $46,899 at a private institution. Note that tuition does not include books, lab fees, etc. In 2010-2011 the median total cost of attendance was $49,298 and $66,984 for public and private universities, respectively.

I would like to know if they calculated that per school or per student.

I would think you could get some assistance from one of these resources.

UK: Treatment for Gambling Addiction
UK: Mental health helplines

US: USA Local Problem Gambling Hotlines
US: Mental Health

CA: Problem Gambling Institute
CA: Mental Health

AU: Problem Gambling
AU: Mental Health Services in Australia

I hope you get well soon.

Really, Ben Franklin was operating the post office on Sundays?

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blmailus1.htm

Is like holding a knife by the blade and say that you pretend to use it to defend yourself, odds are high that you will be the one hurt, specially (but not only) if you try to use it.

Don't tell me... you were one of the original developers of QDOS?

Signed PDFs can be read in any reader, but the signature will be still validated (if the reader is not defective.) Encrypted PDFs will not be even readable if they are not encrypted to you. Password-protected PDFs may require the password to be readable, let alone printable or changeable.

In other words, PDFs are not designed for wanton modification. Some of them can be modified, but others cannot. This means that you cannot build a reliable method for converting suspect PDFs into safe PDFs.

Encrypted PDFs can be broken, quite quickly - a quick search pulled up some tools - one of which I had to use a while back for work [1]. I decrypted about 40k documents in less than a day with GuaPDF, with only about 300 or so that couldn't be cracked - 99% success rate. Combine with the JS detection method noted in another comment [2], and you can still tell if there's a dangerous PDF most of the time.

If you need to protect your populace (i.e., at the mail server level), combining the two above and either blocking (with a "see IT" note) or warning users for uncrackable/JS-detected pdfs sounds like a good win. Especially since cracking is almost instantaneous.

[1] http://pcsupport.about.com/od/toolsofthetrade/tp/pdf-password-remover.htm
[2] http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985927&cid=44314295

Not all. I just quoted four. How you can extrapolate that to all when I specifically said they are not to be trusted as much as reliable ones?

How can you extrapolate that if your sources are right this time, they are always right? And they were not always right. One source said the re-org would happen July 1. That wasn't entirely correct.

The difference should be obvious if you have any background in journalism. It is that reputable organizations like the ones I have listed vet their sources and don't post everything from every anonymous email or tip they get. They spend a minimum time and effort to make sure their reputation stays intact. You can add Reuters and AP to the list I quoted. Most other news organizations just print anything regardless of the reliability of their sources.

Again, you are assuming the source was given all the correct information. The source isn't lying to the reporter but the information they were given may not have been correct. That's why reputable news organization specifically word their articles as coming from a source.

Everyone? Care to reference a couple from WSJ, Bloomberg, Reuters, AP, Washington Post, NYT that say "from our sources"? Or are you making up things as you go ?

WSJ: Apple Moves Closer to Making TV Set
New York Times: What’s Really Next for Apple in Television
Business Insider: Apple Could Announce New TV This December, Says Top Apple Analyst

Satisfied or do you need more?

That made me laugh, you're clutching at straws here. The whole point of the reorg is to have new divisions and heads. Ballmer need not name the head of every small subdivision. Is there even a Xbox division anymore?

That's as idiotic as saying Apple doesn't need someone in charge of iPhones. GE doesn't need anyone in charge of jet engines. Larson-Greene will oversee everything involving Xbox, Windows Phone, Surface, third party developers, and studios. She's never going to eat or sleep again right?

Not this again, I got tired of it because you were not willing to concede the point after losing it. In one post you claimed Microsoft had a option not to let go of Mattrick. I replied no they cannot. After a couple of posts you changed your tune saying that Microsoft can't prevent him from leaving if he pays his way out. I am tired of arguing this again and again.

Since you can't or won't bother to look it up: Wikipedia

A contract of employment usually defined to mean the same as a "contract of service".[2] A contract of service has historically been distinguished from a "contract for services", the expression altered to imply the dividing line between a person who is "employed" and someone who is "self-employed". The purpose of the dividing line is to attribute rights to some kinds of people who work for others. This could be the right to a minimum wage, holiday pay, sick leave, fair dismissal, a written statement of the contract, the right to organize in a union, and so on. The assumption is that genuinely self-employed people should be able to look after their own affairs, and therefore work they do for others should not carry with it an obligation to look after these rights.

or About.com

An employment contract is a written legal document that lays out binding terms and conditions of employment between an employee and an employer. . .

Oh dear. You missed a perfectly good opportunity to Godwin the thread.

This was new to me as well.

http://lungcancer.about.com/od/Lung-Cancer-And-Smoking/a/Third-Hand-Smoke.htm

The British have been making them since the 18th century for export all over their empire. Quite a few are still in use.

http://miniatures.about.com/od/scaleminiatures/ig/Corrugated-Iron-House/Moody-Gosset-House-Front-View.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_tabernacle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefabricated_building

Freedom of speech is not the freedom to be an asshole.

Actually, yes it is.

Oh, and you're a fucking moron. I'm surprised you can even read. Your mama should have aborted you.

See what I did there? I used my freedom of speech rights to be an asshole. Get it now?

No, it hasn't. Well, in the economic sense it might turn out that way, but not in the philosophical. The fact that the majority of users are avoiding Windows 8 doesn't disprove anything I have said, nor any of the results of Microsoft's usability and productivity studies, because the current avoidance of Windows 8 might be caused by something that isn't the fault of (caused directly by) the changes themselves. Such as resistance to change, as I already mentioned.

Yes, I am insinuating that at the very least, some of the resistance to Windows 8 is purely because people don't like change, even when it's for the better. A range of cognitive biases cause us to indiscriminately resist change, though sometimes that is a good thing (such as in the case of change purely for the sake of change itself). They want to continue with the Old Way (and I'll admit that I was at first against Windows 8). In this case however, the article I linked you to shows that the new way is the better one, and highlighting the fact that both opinion and sales of Win8 are low doesn't do anything to disprove it unless the only thing that counts is Microsoft's bank account.

All that aside, Microsoft should have done a much better job at managing this release and the changes it brought. This could have been marketing it better, educating users on how to use it better, toning down the changes, providing an option to switch back to the old interface or any combination of the above, but even though I like the change I agree that Microsoft did a less than stellar job with them.

There is dispute ( http://scifi.about.com/od/Star-Wars-Worlds/a/Endor-Holocaust.htm , http://www.pdfio.com/k-769767.html, etc) as to whether or not this "Endor Holocaust" actually happened or was just Imperial Propaganda.

Google says 1.6 grams of protein.

Apples have less protein, barely any more vitamins, and will cost more than fifty cents.

Apple is loaded with vitamins, minerals and antioxidants. http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-apple-i9003

There is no physicality in the packets being transmitted, therefore no "money" changes hands. It's just zeros and ones in a large and decentralised computer system.

This is a weak argument. Do you have a bank card, or a credit card? Most transactions are electronic, but you can hardly say that money doesn't change hands.

BC are doing nothing new, SETI@Home, Folding@Home et. al., have been running a community loose cluster situation for years. If SETI@Home "units completed" points were called "BitCoins" instead, would the Treasury be going after them?

Definition: Money is a good that acts as a medium of exchange in transactions. If your goods are usable primarily as a medium of exchange in transactions then they are money, and they will be regulated as money. I never heard that SETI@home credits could be used to buy coffee at Starbucks.

I think it's purely down to the fact that more and more people are using BitCoin and shucking the Dollar whenever they can, cutting out the Federal Reserve middleman and depriving them of tax revenue is what's got them upset.

Of course. When somebody does something, look for financial reasons first. I don't think, though, that BTC use reached a significant level yet. None of my acquaintances even heard about BTC, let alone used it. If told, they'd never touch it with a parsec long pole because they have no reason to. They are all adults, by the way, and have no desire to "stick it to the man." They just want "the man" to leave them alone; laying low is a good strategy for that. Painting oneself as a rebel ... not so much.

I'll keep my Dollar in cash. I'll still use the Dollar, but your banks aren't getting a sniff.

It's your right to pay more for the same product. You know how that happens? Merchants are prohibited from asking a higher price for c/c transactions. So they bump up all prices for those few percent that Visa and others skim off the top of your purchases. If you pay that in cash, it's not the bank that receives the money, it's the merchant. The bank gives you a kickback in form of air miles, or points, or something to make it worthwhile for you to use the card. The local merchant gives you nothing.

There is also the problem of credit history. If you don't have any, you won't get a loan when you need one. I hope that works for you; but most people need a loan to buy a car, and a mortgage to buy a house. Otherwise they can buy these items only by the age when they don't need them. Credit card earns credit history for you. Cash does not.

Isn't Karma a renewable resource?

Oh.. If you replace Nuclear power with (X) whatever X is that's quite a chunk of power to replace. In 2011, according to this Nuclear power in this country produced over 821 billion kWh of power. If you replace that with X, we need to know what that replacement cost should be, right?

How many wind Turbines that kill about 600,000 birds / year including Eagles/Hawks/Owls.
We're not building any more large Hydro projects, and we have drought in most of the country presumably because of global warming.
Large Scale Solar Projects are hit / miss (30 to 40% success range) but they're getting better. So how many square miles of solar panels would we need and where would we put them? I have Solar at my house an 8kW system but it has degradation problems with US built panels. I'm already fighting to get those replaced but if we buy more Photo-Voltaic based Solar, that means we'll pad the pockets of the Chinese, increasing an already voluminous trade deficit.
Coal is an option but we'll never get to 0% CO2 with Coal, are we willing to build more Coal mainline plants to make up for the capacity?
Natural Gas seems to be attractive and the Natural Gas folks think substantially along the lines that most of the new energy in this country over the upcoming decades will by CNG capacity, not Nuclear, not Coal. Natural Gas produces less CO2, but it's not-renewable and it pollutes both on the supply side (fracking etc)
and in the processing. So, there's trade-offs there and costs.

On the Photo-Voltaic side of things, right now current panels are anywhere from 100 to 200 watts per square meter. My panels for example were rated to average 180.. I get a lot of sun where I am but let's just work this out and figure out with COTS technology what it would take.

Figure 150 watts / square meter.
Let's assume it's sunny every day where you put these and you get 6 hours at that production rate (early morning/late afternoon, lets power, sometimes clouds) shorter days/longer days etc. Anyway that's 900 W and with extra time, let's say another 40% for morning/evening etc. 1260 W/day/meter or approximately 1.3 kWh/square meter. That 821 BkWh figure is 24/7/365 but let's assume 60% of that was peak daytime capacity for 1/3 (8 hr/day) and the remaining 40% was for non-peak. I'm just pulling some numbers out here, so you plug in your own. 60% of that 821 BkWh figure comes out to 492.6 BKwh that you'd need during daylight hours. At 1.3 KWh/sq meter/day that's 492,600 square km. or 190,194 square miles. of COTS Photo-Voltaic or an area larger than California. But wait, an area that large is going to have clouds, storms overhead etc. So let's say that it's only on average 70% efficient, that means you'll need another 30% in additional area plus that would include Winter when the days are shorter. Anyway, this could all be put into a spreadsheet but who in California is willing to live in Shade the rest of their lives to supply us with 60% or so of the replacement of our Nuclear Main Line generating capacity? That other 40% of that that generating capacity that can't be by Solar would need to be replaced by Natural Gas, Coal or Wind. Let's say NG is the way you want to go. You'd need 328.4 BkWh in capacity and a typical NG Power Station about 500kWh (Largest in US has about 545 megawatts/day capacity) so 545 MW/day = 545,000 kWh/day

(sorry for the crude scientific notation)
328.4 x 10^9 / 545 X 10^6 = 602 plant operating days. From this. Using Natural Gas, for a kWh takes the burning of .00798 Mcf of gas McF = 1000 cubic feet. So producing 328,400,

As far as is publicly known, the B-3 bomber only exists as a concept, a plan for a future bomber, not as a flyable aircraft.

You can see a clip of what they are referring to here. It is from a famous film.

Fluoridation of water is generally considered safe, and in widespread use. You may not want to hear this, but the position you seem to be taking is often associated with the fringe or cranks, even if there might be a valid concern due to specific circumstances. There are communities that do remove it from drinking water.

You may find this useful:
How to Remove Fluoride from Drinking Water
Basic Information about Fluoride in Drinking Water

That Wikipedia article is full of non sequiturs, and was written primarily by someone trying to drum up support for their (very bad) book on the subject.