Hopefully the end result in the future will be that no one is offended, embarrassed, or judgmental about this personal information being disclosed. If everyone's embarrassing moments are available for all to see, maybe we will stop acting with such contrived outrage at these incidents. Everyone does embarrassing things, lets stop judging others so harshly for them. If everyone knows everything about everyone, it is very hard to be hypocritical.
Now I know this is not the full answer; sometimes we keep things secret for good reasons (to not hurt someone else for example), but I think the point that we shouldn't be judging others so harshly for things we all do is still a good one to learn from this.
The problem with this strategy is the the emails are often times from people you know. These don't normally spread because some spam farm is emailing random addresses, but by having an infected person's computer email all the addresses in their address book (people you know) a copy of the virus. So basically the advice should be to never open unexpected spreadsheets from ANYONE, not just random strangers.
Yeah, this seems strange that you would go as far as to commit tax fraud, but you seem to be against downloading a free copy from file sharers. I am curious; is there a moral reason for this duality (maybe you think it is wrong to not pay an artist but not wrong to not pay the government?), or do you just enjoy thinking up ways to get out of having to do something someone is trying to make you do?
Thank you for explaining to this poor guy how basic odds work, I am not sure I could have responded with the same tact.. I also get quite annoyed at this basic misunderstanding of how probability works. An unknown card is an unknown card - by definition of a randomly shuffled deck, each unknown card has an equal chance of being at every position in the deck. In fact the only argument that you could logically make is that a poor player sitting next to you (someone who hits on cards they should stay on) will actually HELP you, because you will see more cards per hand and can therefore COUNT more cards per hand and increase the likelihood that you will encounter favorable deck conditions before you run out of cards. (although at the same time, you might want the loose player to stop taking so many cards once the deck does shift in your favor).
Umm I am not sure you understand how Blackjack works -- the dealer can't 'counter' basic strategy, since they do not have a choice about which action to take, and you are only playing against the dealer -- the way the other players play has no effect on your odds of winning. The reason casinos don't mind if you use basic strategy is that even using basic strategy, a player will still win less than 50 percent of the time. Basic strategy is something that should ALWAYS be used, and cannot be countered.. you will just still lose money (although not quite as fast) as you would otherwise (unless you count cards as well).
It isn't exactly true that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes. For example, many illegal immigrants use a fake social security number so they can get a job. Just like any other worker, part of their income is withheld and sent to the government (especially FICA and payroll taxes). In fact, since they are using fake social security numbers, they can't file for any refund and often times end up paying more than they would have if they had been legal citizens (since many lower income workers end up receiving money back at tax time). While some illegal immigrants work under-the-table jobs and don't pay any income taxes, they still pay sales taxes and other non-income taxes. In addition, many illegal immigrants avoid taking advantage of social services out of fear of being deported, making them less likely to be a drain on these taxpayer-supported institutions.
So the 'input design input' is basically beta-testing. It is in NO way open-source, by any of the definitions people use. A game company asks people to play the game before it is released and then uses their input to adjust the game? Shocking!
The summary mentions a service at decaptcher.com where you can pay $2 per 1000 CAPTCHA's solved. If you visit the site, they make it quite clear that the solving is being done by humans. The technology of the CAPTCHA has not been 'cracked' by this site; the concept of a CAPTCHA itself was proven ineffective. There is no 'more difficult for a computer to figure out' technology that can solve this problem... anything that a legitimate user is able to solve will be able to be solved by the people working at decaptcher... the only thing you might accomplish is making it harder for the people who work there to solve the puzzle, but anything that works in that method will also make it more difficult for an end user. The whole discussion is moot after this.
I think you are confusing health insurance with health services. In very few places are hospitals themselves government run, and in even fewer are drug companies government run. If and when the United States switches to a single payer health care system, Phizer will still be able to sell drugs for a profit. The only difference is that instead of one of the current insurance agency paying for the drugs (like kaiser, blue cross, etc..), it will be a single public insurer who pays for the drugs. In fact, Phizer will have even more incentive to create new drugs because there will be an even larger market of people who can afford to pay for them (everybody instead of just those who are insured).
I am not going to argue that we Americans pay more or less in taxes, but your link doesn't really make your point. For one, as the large banner at the top of the page points out, the numbers presented may or may not be inaccurate. Secondly, even assuming the numbers are correct, they appear to reference the top income tax rate. Not knowing the lower tax rates, how income is calculated for tax purposes, and other information, is is impossible to determine the effective tax rate as compared to the United States. Showing a chart of the alleged top tax rates in other countries doesn't really demonstrate anything actually.
You are acting as if these companies were a person acting in their own interest. In reality, the decisions are made by an individual or group of individuals who have interests that are separate from that of the company itself. The CEO of an investment bank wants to make immediate profits so that they can earn large bonuses; they have no reason to care about the long term soundness of the company.
This isn't something that could be solved by hiring a different CEO; any CEO that is hired will be focused on the short term, because the short term is the only way that a company can measure performance to determine compensation. This is an inherent problem in any corporation; there are competing interests between what is good for the company and what is good for the person making decisions.
Perhaps I was going too far to imply that you were categorizing all young people into the one group and older people into the other. However, both your original post and your response to my post are clearly meant to make an association between youth and a poor work ethic.
Now what is your purpose in making this association? In the given context, it is clearly indicating that you believe it is a good practice to use age as a proxy for easily judging a person's work ethic. I believe this is wrong to do, and by assuming that a young prospect is going to have a poor work ethic because of their youth is unfair, unwise, and discriminatory, even if you are granting the possibility of exceptions.
You are creating a false dichotomy there.. of COURSE you would prefer the a can-do experienced person over someone with an "I'm too good for your job" attitude. You are absolutely wrong, however, to categorize all old people in the first group and all young people in the second group. There are many young people who are experienced and have a can-do attitude, while there are older workers who feel they are too good for their job.
Actually, the reason Ireland has come so far in terms of standard of living and per capita income is because of heavy investment by the EU during the late 90's. This investment was mostly funded from tax revenue in wealthier EU countries (like Germany). That investment of public money has certainly turned around the Irish economy, but to act as if it is because of their pro-business, free market policies is a bit misleading.
That is my favorite argument against creationists... basically, that if what they are saying is true, this computer they are using to tell me that wouldn't work. I don't understand how you can follow a belief system that selectively accepts what we have learned from the scientific process; it works for EVERYTHING else, but not evolution?
But I can't remember the name of it for the life of me. Basically the plot is that someone triggers a financial collapse by selling a bunch of a certain stock to get the automated systems to kick and and cause a cascade effect. Who knew it could really happen?
If anyone knows what the book is called, I will give them a cookie.
Slashdot Mirror
see, the STDs occur when you try to pipe something in to the STDOUT
Hopefully the end result in the future will be that no one is offended, embarrassed, or judgmental about this personal information being disclosed. If everyone's embarrassing moments are available for all to see, maybe we will stop acting with such contrived outrage at these incidents. Everyone does embarrassing things, lets stop judging others so harshly for them. If everyone knows everything about everyone, it is very hard to be hypocritical.
Now I know this is not the full answer; sometimes we keep things secret for good reasons (to not hurt someone else for example), but I think the point that we shouldn't be judging others so harshly for things we all do is still a good one to learn from this.
The problem with this strategy is the the emails are often times from people you know. These don't normally spread because some spam farm is emailing random addresses, but by having an infected person's computer email all the addresses in their address book (people you know) a copy of the virus. So basically the advice should be to never open unexpected spreadsheets from ANYONE, not just random strangers.
Yeah, this seems strange that you would go as far as to commit tax fraud, but you seem to be against downloading a free copy from file sharers. I am curious; is there a moral reason for this duality (maybe you think it is wrong to not pay an artist but not wrong to not pay the government?), or do you just enjoy thinking up ways to get out of having to do something someone is trying to make you do?
Man, it hurts my brain to agree with Clarence Thomas.
Thank you for explaining to this poor guy how basic odds work, I am not sure I could have responded with the same tact.. I also get quite annoyed at this basic misunderstanding of how probability works. An unknown card is an unknown card - by definition of a randomly shuffled deck, each unknown card has an equal chance of being at every position in the deck. In fact the only argument that you could logically make is that a poor player sitting next to you (someone who hits on cards they should stay on) will actually HELP you, because you will see more cards per hand and can therefore COUNT more cards per hand and increase the likelihood that you will encounter favorable deck conditions before you run out of cards. (although at the same time, you might want the loose player to stop taking so many cards once the deck does shift in your favor).
Umm I am not sure you understand how Blackjack works -- the dealer can't 'counter' basic strategy, since they do not have a choice about which action to take, and you are only playing against the dealer -- the way the other players play has no effect on your odds of winning. The reason casinos don't mind if you use basic strategy is that even using basic strategy, a player will still win less than 50 percent of the time. Basic strategy is something that should ALWAYS be used, and cannot be countered.. you will just still lose money (although not quite as fast) as you would otherwise (unless you count cards as well).
It isn't exactly true that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes. For example, many illegal immigrants use a fake social security number so they can get a job. Just like any other worker, part of their income is withheld and sent to the government (especially FICA and payroll taxes). In fact, since they are using fake social security numbers, they can't file for any refund and often times end up paying more than they would have if they had been legal citizens (since many lower income workers end up receiving money back at tax time). While some illegal immigrants work under-the-table jobs and don't pay any income taxes, they still pay sales taxes and other non-income taxes. In addition, many illegal immigrants avoid taking advantage of social services out of fear of being deported, making them less likely to be a drain on these taxpayer-supported institutions.
While illegal immigration is a complex and vexing issue, do not make it out that illegals do not pay taxes. Here is a look at the issue: http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1424.html
So the 'input design input' is basically beta-testing. It is in NO way open-source, by any of the definitions people use. A game company asks people to play the game before it is released and then uses their input to adjust the game? Shocking!
I love the internet.
This summary hurts my brain... last 2007 and the past 15? Really?
Just have the bot randomly jump around, and then stand over their kills and repeatedly crouch.
The summary mentions a service at decaptcher.com where you can pay $2 per 1000 CAPTCHA's solved. If you visit the site, they make it quite clear that the solving is being done by humans. The technology of the CAPTCHA has not been 'cracked' by this site; the concept of a CAPTCHA itself was proven ineffective. There is no 'more difficult for a computer to figure out' technology that can solve this problem... anything that a legitimate user is able to solve will be able to be solved by the people working at decaptcher... the only thing you might accomplish is making it harder for the people who work there to solve the puzzle, but anything that works in that method will also make it more difficult for an end user. The whole discussion is moot after this.
What the RIAA is upset about is that people can download it for free. They don't want people pirating their court appearances!
I think you are confusing health insurance with health services. In very few places are hospitals themselves government run, and in even fewer are drug companies government run. If and when the United States switches to a single payer health care system, Phizer will still be able to sell drugs for a profit. The only difference is that instead of one of the current insurance agency paying for the drugs (like kaiser, blue cross, etc..), it will be a single public insurer who pays for the drugs. In fact, Phizer will have even more incentive to create new drugs because there will be an even larger market of people who can afford to pay for them (everybody instead of just those who are insured).
I am not going to argue that we Americans pay more or less in taxes, but your link doesn't really make your point. For one, as the large banner at the top of the page points out, the numbers presented may or may not be inaccurate. Secondly, even assuming the numbers are correct, they appear to reference the top income tax rate. Not knowing the lower tax rates, how income is calculated for tax purposes, and other information, is is impossible to determine the effective tax rate as compared to the United States. Showing a chart of the alleged top tax rates in other countries doesn't really demonstrate anything actually.
You are acting as if these companies were a person acting in their own interest. In reality, the decisions are made by an individual or group of individuals who have interests that are separate from that of the company itself. The CEO of an investment bank wants to make immediate profits so that they can earn large bonuses; they have no reason to care about the long term soundness of the company.
This isn't something that could be solved by hiring a different CEO; any CEO that is hired will be focused on the short term, because the short term is the only way that a company can measure performance to determine compensation. This is an inherent problem in any corporation; there are competing interests between what is good for the company and what is good for the person making decisions.
Perhaps I was going too far to imply that you were categorizing all young people into the one group and older people into the other. However, both your original post and your response to my post are clearly meant to make an association between youth and a poor work ethic.
Now what is your purpose in making this association? In the given context, it is clearly indicating that you believe it is a good practice to use age as a proxy for easily judging a person's work ethic. I believe this is wrong to do, and by assuming that a young prospect is going to have a poor work ethic because of their youth is unfair, unwise, and discriminatory, even if you are granting the possibility of exceptions.
You are creating a false dichotomy there.. of COURSE you would prefer the a can-do experienced person over someone with an "I'm too good for your job" attitude. You are absolutely wrong, however, to categorize all old people in the first group and all young people in the second group. There are many young people who are experienced and have a can-do attitude, while there are older workers who feel they are too good for their job.
Here in California, it doesn't matter if you signed the non-compete agreement. They can't enforce it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#Enforceability_in_the_State_of_California
This is why the software industry flourishes here; programmers are free to move about without fear of Non-Competes.
Actually, the reason Ireland has come so far in terms of standard of living and per capita income is because of heavy investment by the EU during the late 90's. This investment was mostly funded from tax revenue in wealthier EU countries (like Germany). That investment of public money has certainly turned around the Irish economy, but to act as if it is because of their pro-business, free market policies is a bit misleading.
Awesome: "It was so Wasilla." Sarah Palin, Wasilla mayor, after officiating at a wedding at the local Wal-Mart store.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010306214613/www.alaskamagazine.com/stories/120199/ktob.html
A Universal Surface Scanner Detected? Did it show up on radar suddenly or something?
Radar Operator: Chief, we have detected something on radar!
Chief: What is it?
Radar Operator: It appears to be some sort of Universal Surface Scanner.....
That is my favorite argument against creationists... basically, that if what they are saying is true, this computer they are using to tell me that wouldn't work. I don't understand how you can follow a belief system that selectively accepts what we have learned from the scientific process; it works for EVERYTHING else, but not evolution?
But I can't remember the name of it for the life of me. Basically the plot is that someone triggers a financial collapse by selling a bunch of a certain stock to get the automated systems to kick and and cause a cascade effect. Who knew it could really happen? If anyone knows what the book is called, I will give them a cookie.