Once again - in a couple who does the dying and who does the inheriting? And the wealthy still by their Lexus's (Lexii?), BMWs, Porches etc. Check the cost of of rich women's clothing - $30,000 for a gown that will be worn once? Not unusual. Stroll through a Tiffany's. Check out who spends the money on Prada, Gucci, Halston etc. Who chooses the mansion the wealthy couple will live in? Realtors know enough to pitch to the wife. Who decides/worries about safeguarding income/assets for the golden years - women.
My father was in a fairly senior position with a very large financial institution. He basically handled the macro level financial affairs for about a dozen clients. A dozen very wealthy people. Most of them were old and most of them were women.
How exactly do the rich "horde money"??? Short of stuffing it in their mattresses they have to do something with it. Even if all that means is putting it in bonds, savings accounts, etc. that puts the money to use and the entities it is turned over to do use it - banks don't just stick that cash in a great big vault, they loan it out which creates economic activity.
Most of the wealth in this country (and indeed most of the world) is concentrated with men who are over the age of 50-60 years.
That is absolutely untrue and verging on propaganda. The vast majority of the wealth in western society is controlled by women. Think about who dies first and who gets left the money in the will. And even when both spouses are alive it is usually the female half who performs the majority of the spending. Who is most advertising aimed at? It isn't men that's for sure.
You're jaded, old and behind the times! (rimshot please)
Part of this is the result of a cyclically recurring dream of companies like Sun and IBM to move processing off the desktop and onto a server - because they sell servers. This push comes and goes every maybe 10 years. This time around it has hit some fertile ground because some people in web technology had finally figured out you can be doing something useful while the user is looking at the screen.;)
Add to that the seeming fact that people have always been very religious about the language/platform/tools they end up using and there is a huge inertia to do things any other way than the way they are doing things right now (whenever "right now" is).
More technology isn't always the best way to solve a technological problem. All you really need is a modest bounty on the guys behind it it... say $10 Million for the bodies... errrr....ahhh... arrest, yeah that's it, the arrest... of the guy or guys running a botnet of any size. Cheap, efficient and for a little bit of irony it could be funded out of the Caymans.
Yes - the only thing I'd add to that is that the reason they have so much spare time is that they have no really meaningful activity in the rest of their lives and no experience of power expect by being on the condo board.
The other real problem is that, at least where I live, there is little recourse against the board other than suing and then since you are really suing the association you are effectively suing everyone else so they collectively have much deeper pockets to defend litigation than you have to press it. Power without responsibility really brings out the seamy side of people. In a strange way it actually makes me respect politicians more than I did before I experienced condo life. At least the politicians who don't abuse their power to the extent that the average condo board member does, which seems to be a lot of politicians.
Yes that is my experience as well. I didn't investigate well enough before buying in - my fault - and hadn't really ever paid attention to the condo horror stories of others - again my fault. But once I moved in I found that most people I talked who had lived in condos recounted a similar experience. I would never own a condo again but to anyone who decides to do that my advice is keep your head down.
Have either of these guys ever owned a condo? I made that mistake once - never again. Years to get simple repairs done, friends of the condo board getting repairs long before other people and often before people who requested needed repairs first, etc. etc. ad nauseam. Owning a condo is a good way to see some of the worst traits humanity has to offer. Let an organization like that control the quality or even existence of my net connection? No way.
Reading this my question would be why they don't use the movement technology used in optical image stabilization for digital cameras (video and still) which has been around for quite a long time... some techniques move a lens, which is the last element before the sensor, up and down while others move the sensor up and down (which still counts as OIS it seems). I would assume that in order to achieve its goal OIS is capable of movements accurate to a pixel width or less but perhaps it isn't that good? Or are there other reasons that doesn't work?
A long time ago I saw a TV documentary on military prisons. It included interviews with the prisoners. The military prisons didn't seem to have any of the problems that plague civilian prisons. Maybe it had something to do with all the prison personal being trained soldiers but I also remember one of the prisoners saying "we're just too tired to cause problems."
I've got fond memories of programming a PDP-8... close to the metal indeed. And the PDP-11 was such a glorious thing to use coming from the 8... what a great architectural stride at the time and even a choice of operating systems to boot! And DECUS the first (iirc) user contributed free software group. I think it would be a good thing for CS/Eng students to spend a couple of months learning to make one do something non-trivial. DEC really made a huge chunk of computer history... too bad it is no more!
This is sort of a sideways answer to your question.
I went the other way - physics first then grad math on ode's and pde's. My experience was that things I had had to really slog through when presented by the physics dept suddenly became crystal clear when I looked at it from the math dept point of view. Now it may be that this was the result of taking the physics first - i.e. it wouldn't have been so easy in the math if I hadn't taken the physics first. But I don't think so - the math courses just did a better job of explaining them than the physics course... in fact my reaction at the time was something like "holy crap, two years of physics courses just dropped out as examples in one math course... why didn't they make us take this first!!!!"
No. I already explained several of the (many) reasons it CAN NOT be called such. Go look up the definition of the phenomenon yourself.
Well, yes, it can, and I have "looked it up." You SHOUTING your opinion does not make it any more accurate btw.
Neither firemen nor visitors are going to have any way of knowing that you have made potentially dangerous modifications to your home. Both have a reasonable assumption of safety when they enter an occupied structure.
Visitors are free to assume whatever they want. Their assumptions are not my responsibility. Firemen always assume they are not safe when they enter a burning building.
We don't have floods or hurricanes etc.
I'm not aware of any place in North America that is free of all such natural disasters. Very likely you're either very naive, or lying to support your point.
Your limited awareness does not constitute error on my part. Let's see, just to start, you'd have to live near the Atlantic Ocean to be exposed to a hurricane. And to experience a flood you'd have to live in or near to a large river, a river delta, below a dam or behind dikes. You'd be surprised at how much of the world doesn't fall into either of those two categories. I suspect that if you could make a decent argument you wouldn't need to resort to the ad hominem.
I've spent plenty of time in farming country. There are certainly significant distances between homes, but never anywhere close to 2+ miles. I suspect you're just making things up to suit you.
Hmmm well last time I lived on a farm the next farm over, not especially big was just under 1000 acres. That works out to a square more than a mile on a side. It is common to see farm/cattle operations measured in the tens of thousands of acres. And drive around out in the boonies and it is easy to go much more than a mile between homes. And, again, if you could construct a decent argument you wouldn't need the ad hominem. I suspect you are a troll and will feed you no more.
Yes, it is. When the majority uses it's power to control even the smallest minutiae of my life it most certainly is a tyranny of the majority.
That would be fine, if you never have any visitors, and you'll be perfectly fine with fire fighters standing outside your home, refusing to enter and rescue you (or anyone else inside) as it burns down.
Visitors are not forced to visit. And, at least where I live, out in the boonies the firemen will indeed stop and watch your house burn if you are outside their geographical area of responsibility or if they feel it is unsafe to enter a structure.
Not to mention that "miles" isn't far in the event of flooding, hurricanes, etc. And I sincerely your nearest neighbor is in fact miles away. There are precious few (reasonably habitable) areas in the world where that is even possible these days.
We don't have floods or hurricanes etc. And you need to get out of the city sometime. Try visiting farming country for example.
Not at all. The fact that the populace makes up the government is QUITE relevant. It is a huge difference from "the time of the settlers". You have infinitely more control today than English subjects did.
My observation is that most people have very little actual control over their lives; ymmv.
Never mind that we have a Bill of Rights to guarantee all the relevant fundamental freedoms, and the fact that the punishment for failing to follow building codes is a minor fine, not garroting and being burned at the stake.
A difference of degree, not kind. I don't want a full railing on the side of my staircase, so I take out the existing railing. The government finds out and a) orders the railing put back, and b) fines me. Why? Because someday a child might go up the stairs and fall off. Never mind that there are no children in the home - it might get sold one day to a family that has children and they might not bother putting a railing back in.
This is a democracy. YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT - NOT ME.
So, YOU have decided it is in YOUR best interest that I have to seek expert advice before making potentially dangerous changes (you claim) to MY home. This is called the tyranny of the majority.
The reason YOU give for this is bogus... in the event of disaster, the safety of my home will have no impact on others if the nearest neighbor is miles away, so the invasive restriction of professional inspection is unnecessary and unreasonable.
Really, you have to invoke disaster to try to justify the government telling me I can't make a simple modification to an interior (and non-supporting!) wall in my home??? Sorry but that's just BS, plain and simple.
and btw, you completely missed the point of my post so your response is rather irrelevant.
That seems disappointingly similar to today where I need permission from the government to move a wall inside my house, take a railing off a staircase etc. etc. I might own the property in theory but in practice there isn't a whole lot I can do with it without government consent.
Even if I were to be waaaaayyyy out in the boonies I'd still need consent on building code, environmental stuff etc. etc. Practically this may not be an impediment since they wouldn't bother to come look, especially if the only way in is air or boat, but still the control is still there technically.
You can find serious tech, from the realm of computing at least, in the ACM conference proceedings which can include video of tutorials and paper presentations at conferences, e.g. the SIGGRAPH conference proceedings DVD. Check out http://www.acm.org/
Growing up, my examples of "right wing" financial dealing involved Brian Mulroney as Prime Minister and Grant Devine as Premier of Saskatchewan.
Both of them left their respective governments deep in debt. It was the Liberals who came in and stopped the debt from ballooning out of control in Canada.
You should have looked to provinces further West where the story was the opposite - left wing governments running up huge debt and right wing governments getting it under control. For example BC where the gross incompetence of the NDP government left it stripped to two seats (IIRC) when it finally ran for re-election. And the only province in the country that doesn't have a sales tax is run by a right wing government.
it is the current minority Conservative government that has started running deficits again
Mmmm, no they haven't run a deficit since gaining office. They did reduce personal and business taxes, instituted a monthly childcare grant to families, and reduced the GST from 7% to 5% though.
And while the Liberals did run up a huge debt/deficit that they later under control it was not by reducing spending but by raising taxes and offloading expenses on the provinces. Of course it was also the Liberals who brought the debt to GDP ratio to its highest level in history. It was also the Liberals of the 70's and 80's who bankrupted the Canada Pension Plan by loaning the pension funds to the provinces and never requiring repayment which is why it now requires approximately 10% of wages be skimmed from employees and employers just to keep the plan afloat.
Why is that - are you making bigoted assumptions because I posted some actual factual information about completely unrelated issues? It's a sleazy, underhanded and frankly dishonest tactic and in trying it you do no favour to yourself or to any party you support... quite the contrary in fact.
Slashdot Mirror
Once again - in a couple who does the dying and who does the inheriting? And the wealthy still by their Lexus's (Lexii?), BMWs, Porches etc. Check the cost of of rich women's clothing - $30,000 for a gown that will be worn once? Not unusual. Stroll through a Tiffany's. Check out who spends the money on Prada, Gucci, Halston etc. Who chooses the mansion the wealthy couple will live in? Realtors know enough to pitch to the wife. Who decides/worries about safeguarding income/assets for the golden years - women.
My father was in a fairly senior position with a very large financial institution. He basically handled the macro level financial affairs for about a dozen clients. A dozen very wealthy people. Most of them were old and most of them were women.
How exactly do the rich "horde money"??? Short of stuffing it in their mattresses they have to do something with it. Even if all that means is putting it in bonds, savings accounts, etc. that puts the money to use and the entities it is turned over to do use it - banks don't just stick that cash in a great big vault, they loan it out which creates economic activity.
Most of the wealth in this country (and indeed most of the world) is concentrated with men who are over the age of 50-60 years.
That is absolutely untrue and verging on propaganda. The vast majority of the wealth in western society is controlled by women. Think about who dies first and who gets left the money in the will. And even when both spouses are alive it is usually the female half who performs the majority of the spending. Who is most advertising aimed at? It isn't men that's for sure.
You're jaded, old and behind the times! (rimshot please)
Part of this is the result of a cyclically recurring dream of companies like Sun and IBM to move processing off the desktop and onto a server - because they sell servers. This push comes and goes every maybe 10 years. This time around it has hit some fertile ground because some people in web technology had finally figured out you can be doing something useful while the user is looking at the screen. ;)
Add to that the seeming fact that people have always been very religious about the language/platform/tools they end up using and there is a huge inertia to do things any other way than the way they are doing things right now (whenever "right now" is).
More technology isn't always the best way to solve a technological problem. All you really need is a modest bounty on the guys behind it it... say $10 Million for the bodies... errrr....ahhh... arrest, yeah that's it, the arrest... of the guy or guys running a botnet of any size. Cheap, efficient and for a little bit of irony it could be funded out of the Caymans.
Yes - the only thing I'd add to that is that the reason they have so much spare time is that they have no really meaningful activity in the rest of their lives and no experience of power expect by being on the condo board.
The other real problem is that, at least where I live, there is little recourse against the board other than suing and then since you are really suing the association you are effectively suing everyone else so they collectively have much deeper pockets to defend litigation than you have to press it. Power without responsibility really brings out the seamy side of people. In a strange way it actually makes me respect politicians more than I did before I experienced condo life. At least the politicians who don't abuse their power to the extent that the average condo board member does, which seems to be a lot of politicians.
Yes that is my experience as well. I didn't investigate well enough before buying in - my fault - and hadn't really ever paid attention to the condo horror stories of others - again my fault. But once I moved in I found that most people I talked who had lived in condos recounted a similar experience. I would never own a condo again but to anyone who decides to do that my advice is keep your head down.
Have either of these guys ever owned a condo? I made that mistake once - never again. Years to get simple repairs done, friends of the condo board getting repairs long before other people and often before people who requested needed repairs first, etc. etc. ad nauseam. Owning a condo is a good way to see some of the worst traits humanity has to offer. Let an organization like that control the quality or even existence of my net connection? No way.
Reading this my question would be why they don't use the movement technology used in optical image stabilization for digital cameras (video and still) which has been around for quite a long time... some techniques move a lens, which is the last element before the sensor, up and down while others move the sensor up and down (which still counts as OIS it seems). I would assume that in order to achieve its goal OIS is capable of movements accurate to a pixel width or less but perhaps it isn't that good? Or are there other reasons that doesn't work?
A long time ago I saw a TV documentary on military prisons. It included interviews with the prisoners. The military prisons didn't seem to have any of the problems that plague civilian prisons. Maybe it had something to do with all the prison personal being trained soldiers but I also remember one of the prisoners saying "we're just too tired to cause problems."
I've got fond memories of programming a PDP-8... close to the metal indeed. And the PDP-11 was such a glorious thing to use coming from the 8... what a great architectural stride at the time and even a choice of operating systems to boot! And DECUS the first (iirc) user contributed free software group. I think it would be a good thing for CS/Eng students to spend a couple of months learning to make one do something non-trivial. DEC really made a huge chunk of computer history... too bad it is no more!
Deep breaths, deep breaths... there you go, keep it up and you'll feel better soon.
This is sort of a sideways answer to your question.
I went the other way - physics first then grad math on ode's and pde's. My experience was that things I had had to really slog through when presented by the physics dept suddenly became crystal clear when I looked at it from the math dept point of view. Now it may be that this was the result of taking the physics first - i.e. it wouldn't have been so easy in the math if I hadn't taken the physics first. But I don't think so - the math courses just did a better job of explaining them than the physics course... in fact my reaction at the time was something like "holy crap, two years of physics courses just dropped out as examples in one math course... why didn't they make us take this first!!!!"
What is needed is a multicore processor in which all the cores perform pure MIMD vector processing.
Ummmm it seems to me that if it's MIMD then it's not vector processing.
I have to say that McCain's concession speech was really very graceful. Just thought it should be noted.
No. I already explained several of the (many) reasons it CAN NOT be called such. Go look up the definition of the phenomenon yourself.
Well, yes, it can, and I have "looked it up." You SHOUTING your opinion does not make it any more accurate btw.
Neither firemen nor visitors are going to have any way of knowing that you have made potentially dangerous modifications to your home. Both have a reasonable assumption of safety when they enter an occupied structure.
Visitors are free to assume whatever they want. Their assumptions are not my responsibility. Firemen always assume they are not safe when they enter a burning building.
I'm not aware of any place in North America that is free of all such natural disasters. Very likely you're either very naive, or lying to support your point.
Your limited awareness does not constitute error on my part. Let's see, just to start, you'd have to live near the Atlantic Ocean to be exposed to a hurricane. And to experience a flood you'd have to live in or near to a large river, a river delta, below a dam or behind dikes. You'd be surprised at how much of the world doesn't fall into either of those two categories. I suspect that if you could make a decent argument you wouldn't need to resort to the ad hominem.
I've spent plenty of time in farming country. There are certainly significant distances between homes, but never anywhere close to 2+ miles. I suspect you're just making things up to suit you.
Hmmm well last time I lived on a farm the next farm over, not especially big was just under 1000 acres. That works out to a square more than a mile on a side. It is common to see farm/cattle operations measured in the tens of thousands of acres. And drive around out in the boonies and it is easy to go much more than a mile between homes. And, again, if you could construct a decent argument you wouldn't need the ad hominem. I suspect you are a troll and will feed you no more.
No, it isn't.
Yes, it is. When the majority uses it's power to control even the smallest minutiae of my life it most certainly is a tyranny of the majority.
That would be fine, if you never have any visitors, and you'll be perfectly fine with fire fighters standing outside your home, refusing to enter and rescue you (or anyone else inside) as it burns down.
Visitors are not forced to visit. And, at least where I live, out in the boonies the firemen will indeed stop and watch your house burn if you are outside their geographical area of responsibility or if they feel it is unsafe to enter a structure.
Not to mention that "miles" isn't far in the event of flooding, hurricanes, etc. And I sincerely your nearest neighbor is in fact miles away. There are precious few (reasonably habitable) areas in the world where that is even possible these days.
We don't have floods or hurricanes etc. And you need to get out of the city sometime. Try visiting farming country for example.
Not at all. The fact that the populace makes up the government is QUITE relevant. It is a huge difference from "the time of the settlers". You have infinitely more control today than English subjects did.
My observation is that most people have very little actual control over their lives; ymmv.
Never mind that we have a Bill of Rights to guarantee all the relevant fundamental freedoms, and the fact that the punishment for failing to follow building codes is a minor fine, not garroting and being burned at the stake.
A difference of degree, not kind. I don't want a full railing on the side of my staircase, so I take out the existing railing. The government finds out and a) orders the railing put back, and b) fines me. Why? Because someday a child might go up the stairs and fall off. Never mind that there are no children in the home - it might get sold one day to a family that has children and they might not bother putting a railing back in.
This is a democracy. YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT - NOT ME.
So, YOU have decided it is in YOUR best interest that I have to seek expert advice before making potentially dangerous changes (you claim) to MY home. This is called the tyranny of the majority.
The reason YOU give for this is bogus... in the event of disaster, the safety of my home will have no impact on others if the nearest neighbor is miles away, so the invasive restriction of professional inspection is unnecessary and unreasonable.
Really, you have to invoke disaster to try to justify the government telling me I can't make a simple modification to an interior (and non-supporting!) wall in my home??? Sorry but that's just BS, plain and simple.
and btw, you completely missed the point of my post so your response is rather irrelevant.
That seems disappointingly similar to today where I need permission from the government to move a wall inside my house, take a railing off a staircase etc. etc. I might own the property in theory but in practice there isn't a whole lot I can do with it without government consent.
Even if I were to be waaaaayyyy out in the boonies I'd still need consent on building code, environmental stuff etc. etc. Practically this may not be an impediment since they wouldn't bother to come look, especially if the only way in is air or boat, but still the control is still there technically.
You can find serious tech, from the realm of computing at least, in the ACM conference proceedings which can include video of tutorials and paper presentations at conferences, e.g. the SIGGRAPH conference proceedings DVD. Check out http://www.acm.org/
Growing up, my examples of "right wing" financial dealing involved Brian Mulroney as Prime Minister and Grant Devine as Premier of Saskatchewan. Both of them left their respective governments deep in debt. It was the Liberals who came in and stopped the debt from ballooning out of control in Canada.
You should have looked to provinces further West where the story was the opposite - left wing governments running up huge debt and right wing governments getting it under control. For example BC where the gross incompetence of the NDP government left it stripped to two seats (IIRC) when it finally ran for re-election. And the only province in the country that doesn't have a sales tax is run by a right wing government.
it is the current minority Conservative government that has started running deficits again
Mmmm, no they haven't run a deficit since gaining office. They did reduce personal and business taxes, instituted a monthly childcare grant to families, and reduced the GST from 7% to 5% though.
And while the Liberals did run up a huge debt/deficit that they later under control it was not by reducing spending but by raising taxes and offloading expenses on the provinces. Of course it was also the Liberals who brought the debt to GDP ratio to its highest level in history. It was also the Liberals of the 70's and 80's who bankrupted the Canada Pension Plan by loaning the pension funds to the provinces and never requiring repayment which is why it now requires approximately 10% of wages be skimmed from employees and employers just to keep the plan afloat.
That's what I would have thought. It's good to hear that it is also being tried on other types of cancer.
Mmmm according to another poster it has been applied to some of the cancers you say it cannot be applied to.
Why is that - are you making bigoted assumptions because I posted some actual factual information about completely unrelated issues? It's a sleazy, underhanded and frankly dishonest tactic and in trying it you do no favour to yourself or to any party you support... quite the contrary in fact.
Yes, I'm also quite impressed with what I've seen of him.