If there is a statement with an equals sign in the middle, that means that the left needs to be equal to the right. If there is a blank space, and the two sides clearly aren't equal yet, they want you to make the statement true. Pretty obvious to me.
Let's tackle that first if statement. If there is a statement with an equals sign in the middle... this means an equation with the equals relationship in between two expressions. It's not immediately apparent that there was an equation at all, let alone one with an equality relationship. "=()+" could be an operator... nothing about it starting with '=' implies it's not. "==" or "===" are considered different operators, why shouldn't "=()+"?
And in the case of the second if: If there is a blank space... First, a better represntation of the blank sapce would be ___. Second, the blank space has no mathematical meaning. If you used a variable, then the equation could be true, and you could solve for x. But I can write a false equation: 2+2=9. Are you saying it's obvious to everyone that I think you should white-out the bottom part of one of the 2s to make it a 7? After all, that's modifying the equation to make it true.
I didn't read it as an equal sign. In English: four plus three plus two unknown operator two. Where the unknown operator was designated by =()+ . Empty parentheses don't make sense in general, and if I had to read it as anything I would interpret it as "identity of the operation it is being used in conjunction with" not "unknown".
And for once, I can actually claim expertise: I Am (or more accurately was) a Math Major.
It's not that it's ridiculous, it's that until they repealed it, they would have no salary. Kick them where it counts.
The repeal would be retroactive if necessary, but since any change in compensation cannot go into effect for 2 years, most likely it will get noticed sometime before that.
Unless all our interest on our existing date becomes 0% the debt will continue to grow every year even if we are deficit neutral....
Interest on the debt is included in the deficit, so if we were defict netural, it would mean we are paying off the national debt. We could go a little further and actually pay off some of the principle as well.
Deficit stability = Debt is a linear equation. Debt stability = Debt is a constant.
Now, you mention poor configuration, and I guess that's certainly a possibility: I wasn't aware that one needed to configure Flash for good performance.
I found once I limited the ability to save "Shared Objects" and access 3rd party (cross-site) code, Flash got better. It's not ridiculously cheap, but without the ability to track my video's, and that associated cost, it's better.
Along with tons of extra police-state tidbits like extra taxes on gold.
Actually, it was a change that forced the companies who bought gold to report it, so that profits on investments in physical gold, which were already taxed, to be more likely to be obeyed and easier (and cheaper) for the federal government to enforce.
1. Block the politicians form becoming industry shills afterwards, even for just four or five years after the leave office.
Right now it's only 2 years (or 1, it changed from on to the other recently). But it seems doable to extend it.
2. Make them rely on the same public retirement system and medical system as everyone else.
Except there are two ways to do that... remove their system, or allow everyone in America access to it. Welcome to the health care debate and social security debate.
3. Keep them from controlling their own payraises.
Already done. They control their successor's payraises... and they just often succeed themselves.
Good idea's, but unfortunately already largely implemented. Needs something more.
After the bill passes with near-unanimous consent and is signed by the President, I can pretty much guarantee that no one will pass a bill without reading it again.
Because it was so effective when a member of the Texas House got a bill passed that expressed admiration for the Boston Strangler's "unique approach to population management"?
the latest flash player chews up CPU like no man's business
When doing what? H.264 decoding seems to run quick enough on my machine. Maybe you're trying to watch some Spark 3 stuff? Maybe Flash is configured poorly? Just like JavaScript can bring a machine to it's knees, sometimes, you have to block third-party things in Flash.
So it's more fair for the law to treat you differently based on how much money you earn?
Yes.
Companies do it too (XP Home Premium, Amex Black).
Even more so, it's taking advantage of non-linear utility functions to ensure that the pain of taxes is more equitable.
That's leaving aside the fact that really poor people don't necessarily mind the government collapsing around, where rich people mind a lot. Or that the government has to spentd more to protect rich people. Or that claims on money are inheritly dubious, based on the initial acquisition.
You realize that almost half of this country pays no income tax whatsoever, right? It seems silly to think that the upper-brackets are getting the sweetheart deal when nearly half of the working population pays nothing.
You realize that those people typically have to choose some subset of things that the upper-brackets think are vital necessities... like food, shelter, clothes or medicine this month. Oh, those lucky poor people...
Seriously, there are worse things than paying income tax.
Well, ignoring the UN tangent, how about a good old-fashioned constitutional declaration of war. You know, like in article one, section eight of the US Constitution
Well, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution allows for the President to initiate defensive/retaliatory strikes, with Congress then setting whatever parameters on the continuing mission. The war in Afghanistan was quite legal under US law. Congress can tell Obama to pull out, but until then...
Show me the declaration according to the UN charter. Fittingly the US in Afghanistan was like this detainment of this programmer. IE they are pressing an authoritarian mantra.
What are you asking to see? The UN totally allows defensive/retaliatory military strikes.
Arguably everything could contribute. Protesting against the Mai Lai Massacre killed US soldiers indirectly. Moral lowered by poor opinion back home caused battle errors?
Nice attempt to shift the argument. The question is did those leaks contribute, and a good case has been made. What's wrong with the specific argument.
Patric Stewart is in deed a fine actor, but far less creative than the person who wrote his roles
Really? Watch some of the (especially early) TNG. It was a total ripoff of the original. It only survived because of the talent of the acting staff. The X-Men movies again were not particularly well written, but instead special effect monsters.
Robert Downey Jr. is pretty clearly the reason the Iron Man movies were as good as they were.
And, remember how bad the Star Wars prequals were when we didn't have actor's ad-libbing a good script?
There's no need to split it up so simply. There are ways of splitting up a dataset in 7 such that any 4 can reconstitute it without allowing any handpicked 3 to be able to do so.
An example, where you wanted to require two of three could be accomplished by splitting the key and a random number into thirds. Each party would get 1/3 of the key, 1/3 of the random number and 1/3 of the XOR of the two. Then any two can determine the whole key (assuming they knew which one of their thirds each section was, of course). It's generalizable to 4 of 7.
Oh and also America's K-12 system could be fixed it, like Europe, the students were free to attend ANY public school they wished instead of being stuck in a one-choice monopoly.
You know, some school systems work like that, even in the US. But then again, you have to apply to get into a magnet school.
The reason bad schools are bad has more to do with their inability to be selective than anything else. I know at least one private school kicks you out if you have less than a B average, so of course their graduates do better. Once you start correcting for that, you see that it has more to do with the individual students (and, to a lesser degree, the lack of slow students holding back the class), than anything else.
Whether or not a company or employee has an obligation to respect your privacy (I think they always should do so, but that's irrelevant), if you are going to give them the opportunity to violate it, you had better be prepared for the consequences if they do. While you may have legal recourse against them, that recourse might not be any real consolation, so one should not presume that their confidential information will stay confidential, if they are giving access to it to somebody else who has not actually *personally* earned we sort of their trust through an already existing relationship of some kind.
Except, that is a shitty way to live. So we invented criminal punishments to deal with asshats.
Wow. I'm a total stranger, but can I decide what you make? On a whim?
You mean like when you apply for a job, and someone you've never met offers a salary he thinks you are worth?
And are you seriously suggesting that personally knowing people is somehow going to make you less biased?
There are very good arguments that traders should have caps put on their salaries... that it limits risk taking, especially herd risk taking. Which wouldn't be a problem, except the risks they take are only partially their own.
But you choose a horrible example because you are defending high-frequency trading. A lot of people (myself included) have no problem limiting the compensation in this case to 3-5 in a federal penitentiary. It's a deadweight loss on the system. Basically, if you don't know the euphemism, high-frequency trading is when Goldman Sachs sees that two people have are looking to make a trade at the going market rate, and because the are literally an LPB, quickly buy from the seller, mark it up a tiny amount, and sell it to the buyer. All they do is skim money, cause they can.
Having to limit your externalities via a cap-and-trade system (or, a rationing system that emulates a cap-and-trade system) does not deny you any freedom. Just because you don't immediately see how your actions impact other people doesn't mean that they don't.
As a user of both electricity and gasoline, I'd call that both drastic and, if it is done soon, immediate.
Right. It's a rhetorical device. In response to the claim that the solutions are drastic and immediate, I'm demonstrating what a real drastic and immediate change is.
Cutting CO2 emissions back to 1970 levels (or whatever year it happens to be) is drastic
What is the year? What are the levels? What percentage of that is our current output. We've made a lot of progress since the 70's, but given our far more fuel efficient cars, it doesn't sound that drastic. Especially over 30 years.
. Invoking drastic taxes (euphemistically called "cap and trade") would be drastic by definition.
Cap and Trade has no taxes. There is another alternative "Tax and Distribute" that recommends adding a tax. Cap and Trade simply slowly limits the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere, and then allows the free market to determine which industries are the most cost-effective to clean up. It's a model that historically has worked very well at controlling externalities. Certainly you believe in controlling externalities, right?
If there is "convincing evidence", there must have been a valid experiment to provide it. Which earth was used to change the levels of CO2 and leave all the other factors constant to measure the actual effect of CO2 on temperature?
Well, that's a stupid standard of proof, because you can never prove anything on a global scale. Since your standard disqualifies any statement, it's useless.
2. we MUST do something DRASTIC AND IMMEDIATE to stop it
No one's advocating immediate and drastic measures. You could ration gasoline and electricity. Hell, if anything, that is being advocated may be too little too late. Things like public transportation, smaller cars (which has non-environmental benefits) or mopeds, reducing the waste plastics generated, recycling... all these are pretty mellow things.
Well, first, they are separate already. Google is not your ISP.
Secondly, that doesn't make sense. Where does that regulation exist... cause there are several pieces of legislation, each giving the FCC a different set of powers.
I'm not a big fan of the FCC having this power, and not because "I'm a republican," (I'm actually not, in point of fact), but because I see what moronic regulations the FCC has imposed on television & radio. If you look at the "content controls" they've enacted on those formats, is it all that hard to imagine that they'll soon be tasked with "content regulation" on the internet as well, in the form of mandatory parental controls & staggering fines on sites deemed to violate some obscure and arbitrary FCC ruling?
Yes, it is. First, the broadcast channels are limited in size, and are a public resource. That's the theoretical underpinnings of the regulations. And, it's obvious they obey them because cable (not using some pretty scarce resources) doesn't have the same limitations.
Also, those regulations are being relaxed, now that the public value of those resources is being diminished (both by having more channels/airspace and by having more competitors.)
Also, the FCC was specifically given the power to regulate indecency on the airwaves, they didn't just appropriate it unto themselves. So, if there was a rule giving the FCC that power, I would agree. But it's not.
You're upset cause government is being slow to react, but when there were only 12 channels, ensuring that they be used for widely acceptable viewing was actually important.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, we usually use x. For the second unknown we use y. It's different for the third unknown, we use zee and y'all use zed.
Let's tackle that first if statement. If there is a statement with an equals sign in the middle... this means an equation with the equals relationship in between two expressions. It's not immediately apparent that there was an equation at all, let alone one with an equality relationship. "=()+" could be an operator... nothing about it starting with '=' implies it's not. "==" or "===" are considered different operators, why shouldn't "=()+"?
And in the case of the second if: If there is a blank space... First, a better represntation of the blank sapce would be ___. Second, the blank space has no mathematical meaning. If you used a variable, then the equation could be true, and you could solve for x. But I can write a false equation: 2+2=9. Are you saying it's obvious to everyone that I think you should white-out the bottom part of one of the 2s to make it a 7? After all, that's modifying the equation to make it true.
I didn't read it as an equal sign. In English: four plus three plus two unknown operator two. Where the unknown operator was designated by =()+ . Empty parentheses don't make sense in general, and if I had to read it as anything I would interpret it as "identity of the operation it is being used in conjunction with" not "unknown".
And for once, I can actually claim expertise: I Am (or more accurately was) a Math Major.
The repeal would be retroactive if necessary, but since any change in compensation cannot go into effect for 2 years, most likely it will get noticed sometime before that.
Interest on the debt is included in the deficit, so if we were defict netural, it would mean we are paying off the national debt. We could go a little further and actually pay off some of the principle as well.
Deficit stability = Debt is a linear equation. Debt stability = Debt is a constant.
I found once I limited the ability to save "Shared Objects" and access 3rd party (cross-site) code, Flash got better. It's not ridiculously cheap, but without the ability to track my video's, and that associated cost, it's better.
Same as AdBlock making the web faster.
Actually, it was a change that forced the companies who bought gold to report it, so that profits on investments in physical gold, which were already taxed, to be more likely to be obeyed and easier (and cheaper) for the federal government to enforce.
Right now it's only 2 years (or 1, it changed from on to the other recently). But it seems doable to extend it.
Except there are two ways to do that... remove their system, or allow everyone in America access to it. Welcome to the health care debate and social security debate.
Already done. They control their successor's payraises... and they just often succeed themselves.
Good idea's, but unfortunately already largely implemented. Needs something more.
Because it was so effective when a member of the Texas House got a bill passed that expressed admiration for the Boston Strangler's "unique approach to population management"?
When doing what? H.264 decoding seems to run quick enough on my machine. Maybe you're trying to watch some Spark 3 stuff? Maybe Flash is configured poorly? Just like JavaScript can bring a machine to it's knees, sometimes, you have to block third-party things in Flash.
Yes.
Companies do it too (XP Home Premium, Amex Black).
Even more so, it's taking advantage of non-linear utility functions to ensure that the pain of taxes is more equitable.
That's leaving aside the fact that really poor people don't necessarily mind the government collapsing around, where rich people mind a lot. Or that the government has to spentd more to protect rich people. Or that claims on money are inheritly dubious, based on the initial acquisition.
You realize that those people typically have to choose some subset of things that the upper-brackets think are vital necessities... like food, shelter, clothes or medicine this month. Oh, those lucky poor people...
Seriously, there are worse things than paying income tax.
Well, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution allows for the President to initiate defensive/retaliatory strikes, with Congress then setting whatever parameters on the continuing mission. The war in Afghanistan was quite legal under US law. Congress can tell Obama to pull out, but until then...
That used to be true, but the price of gold has gone up lately.
What are you asking to see? The UN totally allows defensive/retaliatory military strikes.
Nice attempt to shift the argument. The question is did those leaks contribute, and a good case has been made. What's wrong with the specific argument.
Really? Watch some of the (especially early) TNG. It was a total ripoff of the original. It only survived because of the talent of the acting staff. The X-Men movies again were not particularly well written, but instead special effect monsters.
Robert Downey Jr. is pretty clearly the reason the Iron Man movies were as good as they were.
And, remember how bad the Star Wars prequals were when we didn't have actor's ad-libbing a good script?
There's no need to split it up so simply. There are ways of splitting up a dataset in 7 such that any 4 can reconstitute it without allowing any handpicked 3 to be able to do so.
An example, where you wanted to require two of three could be accomplished by splitting the key and a random number into thirds. Each party would get 1/3 of the key, 1/3 of the random number and 1/3 of the XOR of the two. Then any two can determine the whole key (assuming they knew which one of their thirds each section was, of course). It's generalizable to 4 of 7.
You know, some school systems work like that, even in the US. But then again, you have to apply to get into a magnet school.
The reason bad schools are bad has more to do with their inability to be selective than anything else. I know at least one private school kicks you out if you have less than a B average, so of course their graduates do better. Once you start correcting for that, you see that it has more to do with the individual students (and, to a lesser degree, the lack of slow students holding back the class), than anything else.
Except, that is a shitty way to live. So we invented criminal punishments to deal with asshats.
Throw the tech in jail.
You mean like when you apply for a job, and someone you've never met offers a salary he thinks you are worth?
And are you seriously suggesting that personally knowing people is somehow going to make you less biased?
There are very good arguments that traders should have caps put on their salaries... that it limits risk taking, especially herd risk taking. Which wouldn't be a problem, except the risks they take are only partially their own.
But you choose a horrible example because you are defending high-frequency trading. A lot of people (myself included) have no problem limiting the compensation in this case to 3-5 in a federal penitentiary. It's a deadweight loss on the system. Basically, if you don't know the euphemism, high-frequency trading is when Goldman Sachs sees that two people have are looking to make a trade at the going market rate, and because the are literally an LPB, quickly buy from the seller, mark it up a tiny amount, and sell it to the buyer. All they do is skim money, cause they can.
Having to limit your externalities via a cap-and-trade system (or, a rationing system that emulates a cap-and-trade system) does not deny you any freedom. Just because you don't immediately see how your actions impact other people doesn't mean that they don't.
Right. It's a rhetorical device. In response to the claim that the solutions are drastic and immediate, I'm demonstrating what a real drastic and immediate change is.
What is the year? What are the levels? What percentage of that is our current output. We've made a lot of progress since the 70's, but given our far more fuel efficient cars, it doesn't sound that drastic. Especially over 30 years.
Cap and Trade has no taxes. There is another alternative "Tax and Distribute" that recommends adding a tax. Cap and Trade simply slowly limits the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere, and then allows the free market to determine which industries are the most cost-effective to clean up. It's a model that historically has worked very well at controlling externalities. Certainly you believe in controlling externalities, right?
Well, that's a stupid standard of proof, because you can never prove anything on a global scale. Since your standard disqualifies any statement, it's useless.
How is it relevant?
No one's advocating immediate and drastic measures. You could ration gasoline and electricity. Hell, if anything, that is being advocated may be too little too late. Things like public transportation, smaller cars (which has non-environmental benefits) or mopeds, reducing the waste plastics generated, recycling... all these are pretty mellow things.
I agree... but is there some way to solve this?
Because "popup dialog requesting access" is clearly a failed model. I wonder if there is a better permissions method.
Well, first, they are separate already. Google is not your ISP.
Secondly, that doesn't make sense. Where does that regulation exist... cause there are several pieces of legislation, each giving the FCC a different set of powers.
Yes, it is. First, the broadcast channels are limited in size, and are a public resource. That's the theoretical underpinnings of the regulations. And, it's obvious they obey them because cable (not using some pretty scarce resources) doesn't have the same limitations.
Also, those regulations are being relaxed, now that the public value of those resources is being diminished (both by having more channels/airspace and by having more competitors.)
Also, the FCC was specifically given the power to regulate indecency on the airwaves, they didn't just appropriate it unto themselves. So, if there was a rule giving the FCC that power, I would agree. But it's not.
You're upset cause government is being slow to react, but when there were only 12 channels, ensuring that they be used for widely acceptable viewing was actually important.