Actually, the cat will freeze in midair suspended on its side, because in that case, the direction of spin that requires the least work to get the cat/toast to the correct position are in opposite directions with an equal magnitude. So, sadly, it will hit static equilibrium, so you'll just have a crazy floating cat, not a crazy floating power-generating cat.
How exactly do you expect a municipal Internet service to be paid for, if not with taxes? Or are you one of those people who expects governments to deliver services paid for by fairy dust and wishes?
This, to me, represents the biggest problem with municipal broadband. As it stands, private corporations that want to set up broadband have to get investment in order to set up their networks, and then recoup that investment from paying customers. However, the government can just take money from the taxpayers and then undercut any other services, since they don't have to pay us back. This can quickly lead to a government monopoly which, while it has its advantages, can have severe disadvantages. Some good ones that others have pointed out include them being ill-responsive to service requests, having no incentive to upgrade their network, and possibly using it as a political tool, such as imposing "child safe" filters on the municipal network. While I kind of trust local governments to do the right thing effectively (they tend to do things like garbage pickup pretty effectively), it's still a big risk. I think if the municipal governments weren't allowed to use tax dollars, and instead had to attract private investors (at least, not without a referendum allowing them to use tax dollars), then it could work out well. They could also use bonds, which could be redeemed for their cash value, or perhaps some upgrade or improved service.
I must sincerely disagree. While I enjoyed the original, I simply can't play it anymore, because melee is just that much better, and the old one feels sluggish and boring. One of the things I liked so much about the series was that it wasn't at all like a normal fighting series, and reflexes and agility were so much more crucial than standing and fighting. It's a completely different experience, and melee improved on these differences immensely, and in a way that I heartily approve of. There's just something about the split second madness of melee that really gets the blood flowing that the original didn't have. And I actually like the smaller stages; I much prefer stock melee mode, and smaller stages prevent people from hiding in corners, and then picking off the last person standing so they can take the victory. Plus, it just assists in the fast-paced, crazy action.
And I think the complaint about lack of control is just silly. They added a slew of new moves, and some of things I've seen experts do absolutely boggles my mind (like wavedashing). Having some characters have less traction than others also adds a whole new level of intriguing balance, and makes play much more interesting. Not only that, they substantially rebalanced the things that were broken in the old game, like certain items (hammer, beam sword, etc) and throws. I certainly won't claim that they made the game balanced (they nerfed Kirby entirely too viciously, among others), but they made the balance better, and clearly put a ton of effort into making the game playable pretty much any way you want. There's a reason it's the only console game I play these days, despite being 6 years old now. It's just that awesome.
As far as I can tell, it's supply and demand. The supply of colleges is fairly fixed, but population is increasing, and the social pressure to go to college is bigger than ever. The combination of the two means that demand is skyrocketing, leading to prices going up.
Except his scary fairtax plan is quite extreme and can cause serve economic damage if you apply a 25% consumption tax in addition to state taxes! Yes the rich corporate fat cats will pay nothing but it wont help if their income drops by 50% as people can afford the taxes at their level of spending. Regression consumption taxes really hurt the lower class the most and people who are just trying to get buy.
Yes I will probably be modded as a troll here but think before you follow a candidate who support such an idea? Rich alreayd have insane savings rates and poor have debt or dissaving rates.
Anyway a huge depression could result if he is elected and does such an insane system.
Unless we're thinking of different Fairtax plans, the one I've read is actually fairly progressive (i.e. not regressive). For instance, as part of the system, the Department of Health and Human Services would regularly determine the general cost of living at a poverty line level for various family sizes (including food, clothing, health care, etc), and then send a refund check to every single family every month covering the tax value of that cost, effectively nullifying the tax for low income families. Also, there are absolutely NO exceptions in the Fairtax, which means that rich people would have to pay for their indulgences. And since when is savings a bad thing? It allows banks to offer lower rates of interest to companies, which allows them to invest, which helps them lower prices.
Another benefit of the Fairtax system is the complete elimination of the massive amounts of overhead caused by the tax system; they'll run more efficiently, have to pay fewer taxes, and need substantially fewer accountants and lawyers for this sort of thing. Most of these savings would be passed onto the consumer, helping to nullify the price increase.
Also, remember, the rich are currently the biggest beneficiaries of the tax system. They pay ridiculously low percentages (I've heard of millionaries paying something like 15%), while the middle class winds up somewhere in the 40% range. There's no cheating a Fairtax system; you pay taxes on everything you buy, and the rich will either help pay for their share of the government, or help lower our prices.
If you want to complain about the Fairtax, complain about the fact that it only works if implemented perfectly, and that it'll never, ever be accepted by Congress even in small parts. But the economics are fairly sound, or at least not absolutely insane. It's infeasible, but a fairly interesting idea. I personally like it because the government won't be able to get away with out of control spending without us knowing about it in the form of a sales tax increase.
Actually I believe the aussie government is already well on the case.
Correct, as a resident Aussie this is already the case over here too. Hooray for not being able to sing Happy Birthday to you, happy birthda... be right back, someones at the door. It's that way in the United States, too; they just can't stop a collection of private citizens from breaking into singing it spontaneously. That's why most restaurants have their own variations of Happy Birthday, since it could be argued that they could be making money off of the song if they sing it as part of a birthday celebration at the restaurant.
This is affecting small groups that cannot negotiate prices directly and can harm them on BEHALF of wal-mart.
Wal-Mart can demand a lower price, something they already do, but smaller groups cannot demand lower prices.
This makes it so that everyone just goes to Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart now has the ability to severely undercut prices while smaller, local groups have to sell them at high prices or not sell them at all. At worse they will even be forced to keep stock that they cannot return because they cannot sell the stock. That is the reason you have sale prices in the first place, it is to get rid of stock that you can't sell at the regular price.
Now they will just have to burn the stuff or something, not sure exactly, but in the end the company that sold it to them got their money already.
Wait...how did this ruling change anything, then? We all know Wal-Mart strong-arms price drops from their suppliers and that screws Mom and Pop stores, but eliminating a ban on price floors won't change that one iota in either direction. In fact, if they enforce a (now legal) price floor against small retailers but not Wal-Mart, you could easily bring up charges against Wal-Mart or the supplier for price fixing or other such things. I really don't see how this helps Wal-Mart, since the only thing it can do is either force Wal-Mart to accept a price floor (thus leveling the playing field for Mom and Pop stores) or put them up for anti-trust charges. Sounds like a win to me.
I'm sorry, but their best PSA has to be Real Life vs The Internet. Truly an informative piece for anyone who needs to be acquainted with the internet, lest they do dangerous things, like go to www.presidentialsluts.com. Plus, it has some of the most absolutely hilarious lines ever.
Would you like a bigger penis??? Where would you like it?? I can suggest some places!
I voted for Nader! I hate everyone! And so on.
Conversely, could they be trying to kill the format? After all, if everyone transitions to HD-DVD or Blue-Ray drives, they're more likely to replace their old DVDs with the new disks, making them even more money on replacements. It stands to reason that if they make it illegal to copy DVDs (leading to it being less likely that people will be able to do it effectively), then it loses one of its best selling points over the high-definition formats (which to the average user are difficult to copy). It's rampant speculation, but I wouldn't put it past them to do this in order to promote their new, more expensive formats, getting us to buy everything all over again.
This fails the test of making any sense whatsoever (since people will be able to copy DVDs whether these people want them to or not), but we all know that they routinely fail that test when coming up with new ideas anyway:).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the cat will freeze in midair suspended on its side, because in that case, the direction of spin that requires the least work to get the cat/toast to the correct position are in opposite directions with an equal magnitude. So, sadly, it will hit static equilibrium, so you'll just have a crazy floating cat, not a crazy floating power-generating cat.
How exactly do you expect a municipal Internet service to be paid for, if not with taxes? Or are you one of those people who expects governments to deliver services paid for by fairy dust and wishes?
This, to me, represents the biggest problem with municipal broadband. As it stands, private corporations that want to set up broadband have to get investment in order to set up their networks, and then recoup that investment from paying customers. However, the government can just take money from the taxpayers and then undercut any other services, since they don't have to pay us back. This can quickly lead to a government monopoly which, while it has its advantages, can have severe disadvantages. Some good ones that others have pointed out include them being ill-responsive to service requests, having no incentive to upgrade their network, and possibly using it as a political tool, such as imposing "child safe" filters on the municipal network. While I kind of trust local governments to do the right thing effectively (they tend to do things like garbage pickup pretty effectively), it's still a big risk. I think if the municipal governments weren't allowed to use tax dollars, and instead had to attract private investors (at least, not without a referendum allowing them to use tax dollars), then it could work out well. They could also use bonds, which could be redeemed for their cash value, or perhaps some upgrade or improved service.I must sincerely disagree. While I enjoyed the original, I simply can't play it anymore, because melee is just that much better, and the old one feels sluggish and boring. One of the things I liked so much about the series was that it wasn't at all like a normal fighting series, and reflexes and agility were so much more crucial than standing and fighting. It's a completely different experience, and melee improved on these differences immensely, and in a way that I heartily approve of. There's just something about the split second madness of melee that really gets the blood flowing that the original didn't have. And I actually like the smaller stages; I much prefer stock melee mode, and smaller stages prevent people from hiding in corners, and then picking off the last person standing so they can take the victory. Plus, it just assists in the fast-paced, crazy action.
And I think the complaint about lack of control is just silly. They added a slew of new moves, and some of things I've seen experts do absolutely boggles my mind (like wavedashing). Having some characters have less traction than others also adds a whole new level of intriguing balance, and makes play much more interesting. Not only that, they substantially rebalanced the things that were broken in the old game, like certain items (hammer, beam sword, etc) and throws. I certainly won't claim that they made the game balanced (they nerfed Kirby entirely too viciously, among others), but they made the balance better, and clearly put a ton of effort into making the game playable pretty much any way you want. There's a reason it's the only console game I play these days, despite being 6 years old now. It's just that awesome.
As far as I can tell, it's supply and demand. The supply of colleges is fairly fixed, but population is increasing, and the social pressure to go to college is bigger than ever. The combination of the two means that demand is skyrocketing, leading to prices going up.
Yes I will probably be modded as a troll here but think before you follow a candidate who support such an idea? Rich alreayd have insane savings rates and poor have debt or dissaving rates.
Anyway a huge depression could result if he is elected and does such an insane system.
Unless we're thinking of different Fairtax plans, the one I've read is actually fairly progressive (i.e. not regressive). For instance, as part of the system, the Department of Health and Human Services would regularly determine the general cost of living at a poverty line level for various family sizes (including food, clothing, health care, etc), and then send a refund check to every single family every month covering the tax value of that cost, effectively nullifying the tax for low income families. Also, there are absolutely NO exceptions in the Fairtax, which means that rich people would have to pay for their indulgences. And since when is savings a bad thing? It allows banks to offer lower rates of interest to companies, which allows them to invest, which helps them lower prices.
Another benefit of the Fairtax system is the complete elimination of the massive amounts of overhead caused by the tax system; they'll run more efficiently, have to pay fewer taxes, and need substantially fewer accountants and lawyers for this sort of thing. Most of these savings would be passed onto the consumer, helping to nullify the price increase.
Also, remember, the rich are currently the biggest beneficiaries of the tax system. They pay ridiculously low percentages (I've heard of millionaries paying something like 15%), while the middle class winds up somewhere in the 40% range. There's no cheating a Fairtax system; you pay taxes on everything you buy, and the rich will either help pay for their share of the government, or help lower our prices.
If you want to complain about the Fairtax, complain about the fact that it only works if implemented perfectly, and that it'll never, ever be accepted by Congress even in small parts. But the economics are fairly sound, or at least not absolutely insane. It's infeasible, but a fairly interesting idea. I personally like it because the government won't be able to get away with out of control spending without us knowing about it in the form of a sales tax increase.
Of course there's a difference. The Vista one is probably slower.
This is affecting small groups that cannot negotiate prices directly and can harm them on BEHALF of wal-mart.
Wal-Mart can demand a lower price, something they already do, but smaller groups cannot demand lower prices.
This makes it so that everyone just goes to Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart now has the ability to severely undercut prices while smaller, local groups have to sell them at high prices or not sell them at all. At worse they will even be forced to keep stock that they cannot return because they cannot sell the stock. That is the reason you have sale prices in the first place, it is to get rid of stock that you can't sell at the regular price.
Now they will just have to burn the stuff or something, not sure exactly, but in the end the company that sold it to them got their money already.
Wait...how did this ruling change anything, then? We all know Wal-Mart strong-arms price drops from their suppliers and that screws Mom and Pop stores, but eliminating a ban on price floors won't change that one iota in either direction. In fact, if they enforce a (now legal) price floor against small retailers but not Wal-Mart, you could easily bring up charges against Wal-Mart or the supplier for price fixing or other such things. I really don't see how this helps Wal-Mart, since the only thing it can do is either force Wal-Mart to accept a price floor (thus leveling the playing field for Mom and Pop stores) or put them up for anti-trust charges. Sounds like a win to me.
Conversely, could they be trying to kill the format? After all, if everyone transitions to HD-DVD or Blue-Ray drives, they're more likely to replace their old DVDs with the new disks, making them even more money on replacements. It stands to reason that if they make it illegal to copy DVDs (leading to it being less likely that people will be able to do it effectively), then it loses one of its best selling points over the high-definition formats (which to the average user are difficult to copy). It's rampant speculation, but I wouldn't put it past them to do this in order to promote their new, more expensive formats, getting us to buy everything all over again.
:).
This fails the test of making any sense whatsoever (since people will be able to copy DVDs whether these people want them to or not), but we all know that they routinely fail that test when coming up with new ideas anyway
Why stop there? I'm sure that, with a little elbow grease, it could solve the halting problem, too.
Am I the only one who finds this incredibly amusing coming from someone named TrekkieGod?