Sure it is probably only a 5-10% time savings, but that means you can get by with fewer cashiers or have reduced time in line.
One might think so, but every time I go to Walmart, the cashier is so inept, it still takes 30 minutes of standing in line waiting for the cashier to figure out how to ring up something they've never seen before.
Reducing the time spent bagging isn't the big time-waster there.
Finally someone else who understands what is really going to happen.
Imagine the riots in Greece over their austerity measures, but happening in dozens of cities at once. I give us about another 10 years before your vision comes to pass. And it would be the best thing that could happen to the US.
I advocate removing marriage from government oversight, leaving abortion alone as it stands, decriminalizing drugs, allowing hard-working immigrants to enter to work the menial/migrant jobs while sending their money home to their wife and children, prostitution, gambling, and a much looser restriction on public nudity as long as the perverts stay away from children.
Why am I always being lumped in with the conservatives?
Back in the mid-nineties, in one of my computer courses, we had to give a lecture about someone related to computer security. I chose Mitnick. His story then was legendary. It's only gotten better since.
And I got the highest score in the class for that assignment, so all I can say is "Go Mitnick!"
... one side adopting the other sides tricks and using them effectively for the first time.
What a shocker!
Yes, that emphasized part is the real shocker here. Republicans/conservatives always manage to pull defeat from the jaws of victory. They are finally figuring out how to play hardball. Although as November showed, they still have a long way to go.
(And don't anyone hate on me, I didn't vote for either of the two leading buffoons. I voted for someone who actually showed integrity during the campaign.)
Preserves the historic structure and function of the Electoral College. Ends the over-representation of small states and under-representation of large states in presidential voting and in the US Senate by eliminating small and large states.
shows he knows nothing of what the Electoral College represents, or what its historical importance was at the time of its inception.
This is what I was wondering about. Although I don't know if the samples they have for matching, ie. semen, would contain the different immune cells.
By the way, does it matter if the DNA sample that the police took from the twins is blood, cheek swap, or semen/sperm? Considering the only sample they have to test against is semen/sperm, does this play an important part in the analysis?
How many stereotypes of libertarians do you keep track of? Beyond that, you must have never heard that explanation of "All poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles." Most bible-thumpers are not libertarians, for the reason you mention. No one claimed they were. (For that matter, I didn't claim anyone was a libertarian, you did.) I said the libertarian stereotype is a bible-thumper, not bible-thumpers are libertarians. My experience with libertarians is that most of them are quite religious, which is why many of their meeting places are in churches. That is one reason I don't choose to join their ranks. Your experience doesn't matter, since you can't figure out basic English statements anyway. (You think I have to deny some asinine insult you pulled out of your ass? Go away child, and stop using your daddy's/. id.)
While I see the point you are making, I think I phrased mine correctly, since I was talking about the diversity of life and not simply its existence. You bring up a distinction that I have noticed is lost on many, that "evolution" isn't the start of life, but the changing of life over time. Too many people I have talked with over the years can't figure that one out. But their point usually is just to argue against religion anyway, not actually discuss a scientific subject.
You know, I don't know why it got modded funny either.
But between the responses here, and a cursory look at Wikipedia's article for 'virus', it doesn't seem like any 'basic education' answer is going to be correct.
That's why I like the question. I believe evolution is why we have the diverse life around us. But viruses don't fit in a neat branch from anything else. It's difficult to think they evolved from similar living organisms, even now-extinct ones. I was just pointing out that for all the knowledge we do have, there are still areas that we are not well-informed about.
I don't know why this didn't get placed right. It was in response to the AC who first responded to my previous post. It isn't a response to cyberax, whose reply I have since replied to in turn.
Glass-Steagall was repealed long after these bad loans were being made. In fact, after the loans were being packaged as 'mortgage backed securities', and a profit was being seen from them. Why else would investment banks want in on the action? Your argument puts the cart before the horse.
"What loan officer first decided his career was safer if he accepted "Welfare payments" as income in determining eligibility for a loan?"
Misleading. Most defaulted loans were on the property bought by solidly middle-class citizens. The percent of defaults in "red-lined" areas was basically the same as everywhere else.
Not misleading. Just not the question you actually can answer faithfully. I didn't say that the low-income mortgages were the majority of loans, or the majority of loans that failed. But at some early point, loan officers, bank managers, moan underwriters, etc, all decided to use very risky decisions to base loan approvals on. This is something those people don't normally do, that is why they worked at banks, rather than charities. So some outside force made them change their ways. And that happened long before 'mortgage backed securities' or the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
"The disconnect in your argument is that, for hundreds of years, bank managers and loan officers NEVER made decisions like those. Then suddenly they did. Do you actually think they made that break in lending policy all by themselves?"
Yep. To get a quick buck for top management. And it worked, mind you.
You keep failing to answer the basic preise: How.would the bank make a profit on a mortgage that could not be paid back, when there was no way to make a profit on mortgages that did not get paid back?
Your arguments is that all the bad loans were made so they could be packaged into mortgage backed securities, when those things were concocted as a method to limit the damage of bad loans when they failed. Obviously mortgage backed securities were not the original plan of lending money to people who could never pay it back.
Actually, I guess I should not say "obviously" there, as you keep arguing that was the plan all along. See my analogy of Mr Ford and seatbelts.
Mandatory Car Analogy: How long will it take you to drive 60 miles if you're going 60 miles/hour now? (what you don't know is that in two minutes someones going to cut you off and you'll end up rear ending them)
You say that as if you think it means I will stop.
. Actually, I'll be late anyway, as I don't go over 55mph. My mileage goes to crap at 60.
Your argument is based on a false premise, that bad loans were made so they could be bundled into 'mortgage backed securities'. Let me convert that false premise into a car analogy.
Henry Ford built cars so that he would have something to attach seat belts to, because he knew he could make a fortune in seat belt sales, decades later.
Wait a minute. We have a fiscal conservative (correct me if I am wrong) who not only isn't a bible-thumper, but who actually seems to hold organized religion in low regard.
You're going to make someone's head explode as they try to pigeonhole you into their "evil conservative" mental cubbyhole.
In fact, judging from the lack of responses to your post, we lost a few members just in the last couple hours.
What bank manager decided he would make more money by giving a loan to someone who would never be able to pay it back?
What loan officer first decided his career was safer if he accepted "Welfare payments" as income in determining eligibility for a loan?
The disconnect in your argument is that, for hundreds of years, bank managers and loan officers NEVER made decisions like those. Then suddenly they did. Do you actually think they made that break in lending policy all by themselves?
Slashdot Mirror
Sure it is probably only a 5-10% time savings, but that means you can get by with fewer cashiers or have reduced time in line.
One might think so, but every time I go to Walmart, the cashier is so inept, it still takes 30 minutes of standing in line waiting for the cashier to figure out how to ring up something they've never seen before.
Reducing the time spent bagging isn't the big time-waster there.
I don't think you apprehend the scale of the problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch
That's where they should have a nuclear bomb test. Atomize that shit.
Vey is mir, you must be... *facepalm*
I "must be" making a joke you dunce. "Bar mitzvah", ever heard of it?
No. I voted for the one who was arrested for insisting a national presidential debate should have all the national presidential candidates present.
I don't agree with most of that candidate's party's platform, but some things are more important than my personal stance on particular issues.
And Harry Reid, the top Democrat in the Congress, has compromised how???
He hasn't allowed a budget vote in years, yet the people who oppose him are your radicals?
Finally someone else who understands what is really going to happen.
Imagine the riots in Greece over their austerity measures, but happening in dozens of cities at once. I give us about another 10 years before your vision comes to pass. And it would be the best thing that could happen to the US.
I advocate removing marriage from government oversight, leaving abortion alone as it stands, decriminalizing drugs, allowing hard-working immigrants to enter to work the menial/migrant jobs while sending their money home to their wife and children, prostitution, gambling, and a much looser restriction on public nudity as long as the perverts stay away from children.
Why am I always being lumped in with the conservatives?
Back in the mid-nineties, in one of my computer courses, we had to give a lecture about someone related to computer security. I chose Mitnick. His story then was legendary. It's only gotten better since.
And I got the highest score in the class for that assignment, so all I can say is "Go Mitnick!"
... one side adopting the other sides tricks and using them effectively for the first time.
What a shocker!
Yes, that emphasized part is the real shocker here. Republicans/conservatives always manage to pull defeat from the jaws of victory. They are finally figuring out how to play hardball. Although as November showed, they still have a long way to go.
(And don't anyone hate on me, I didn't vote for either of the two leading buffoons. I voted for someone who actually showed integrity during the campaign.)
For him to claim his map:
Preserves the historic structure and function of the Electoral College.
Ends the over-representation of small states and under-representation of large states in presidential voting and in the US Senate by eliminating small and large states.
shows he knows nothing of what the Electoral College represents, or what its historical importance was at the time of its inception.
This is what I was wondering about. Although I don't know if the samples they have for matching, ie. semen, would contain the different immune cells.
By the way, does it matter if the DNA sample that the police took from the twins is blood, cheek swap, or semen/sperm? Considering the only sample they have to test against is semen/sperm, does this play an important part in the analysis?
Wait. Do they also have the 4th of July?
"Mitzvah"??
Is that the bar my jewish friends go to every couple of months?
Sometimes you only have a $5 bill, but you still have to get to work.
Ooh, a second zinger. You're on fire tonight.
How many stereotypes of libertarians do you keep track of? Beyond that, you must have never heard that explanation of "All poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles." Most bible-thumpers are not libertarians, for the reason you mention. No one claimed they were. (For that matter, I didn't claim anyone was a libertarian, you did.) I said the libertarian stereotype is a bible-thumper, not bible-thumpers are libertarians. My experience with libertarians is that most of them are quite religious, which is why many of their meeting places are in churches. That is one reason I don't choose to join their ranks. Your experience doesn't matter, since you can't figure out basic English statements anyway. (You think I have to deny some asinine insult you pulled out of your ass? Go away child, and stop using your daddy's /. id.)
While I see the point you are making, I think I phrased mine correctly, since I was talking about the diversity of life and not simply its existence. You bring up a distinction that I have noticed is lost on many, that "evolution" isn't the start of life, but the changing of life over time. Too many people I have talked with over the years can't figure that one out. But their point usually is just to argue against religion anyway, not actually discuss a scientific subject.
Oh, you hurt my feelings. Well I guess that shows me, don't it.
By the way, the libertarian stereotype is the bible-thumper that he doesn't think highly of.
You know, I don't know why it got modded funny either.
But between the responses here, and a cursory look at Wikipedia's article for 'virus', it doesn't seem like any 'basic education' answer is going to be correct.
That's why I like the question. I believe evolution is why we have the diverse life around us. But viruses don't fit in a neat branch from anything else. It's difficult to think they evolved from similar living organisms, even now-extinct ones. I was just pointing out that for all the knowledge we do have, there are still areas that we are not well-informed about.
I don't know why this didn't get placed right. It was in response to the AC who first responded to my previous post. It isn't a response to cyberax, whose reply I have since replied to in turn.
"What bank manager decided he would make more money by giving a loan to someone who would never be able to pay it back?"
That was Congress, when it allowed classic banks to engage in direct investments into complicated securities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act#Glass.E2.80.93Steagall_.E2.80.9Crepeal.E2.80.9D_and_the_financial_crisis
Glass-Steagall was repealed long after these bad loans were being made. In fact, after the loans were being packaged as 'mortgage backed securities', and a profit was being seen from them. Why else would investment banks want in on the action? Your argument puts the cart before the horse.
"What loan officer first decided his career was safer if he accepted "Welfare payments" as income in determining eligibility for a loan?"
Misleading. Most defaulted loans were on the property bought by solidly middle-class citizens. The percent of defaults in "red-lined" areas was basically the same as everywhere else.
Not misleading. Just not the question you actually can answer faithfully. I didn't say that the low-income mortgages were the majority of loans, or the majority of loans that failed. But at some early point, loan officers, bank managers, moan underwriters, etc, all decided to use very risky decisions to base loan approvals on. This is something those people don't normally do, that is why they worked at banks, rather than charities. So some outside force made them change their ways. And that happened long before 'mortgage backed securities' or the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
"The disconnect in your argument is that, for hundreds of years, bank managers and loan officers NEVER made decisions like those. Then suddenly they did. Do you actually think they made that break in lending policy all by themselves?"
Yep. To get a quick buck for top management. And it worked, mind you.
You keep failing to answer the basic preise: How.would the bank make a profit on a mortgage that could not be paid back, when there was no way to make a profit on mortgages that did not get paid back?
Your arguments is that all the bad loans were made so they could be packaged into mortgage backed securities, when those things were concocted as a method to limit the damage of bad loans when they failed. Obviously mortgage backed securities were not the original plan of lending money to people who could never pay it back.
Actually, I guess I should not say "obviously" there, as you keep arguing that was the plan all along. See my analogy of Mr Ford and seatbelts.
Mandatory Car Analogy: How long will it take you to drive 60 miles if you're going 60 miles/hour now? (what you don't know is that in two minutes someones going to cut you off and you'll end up rear ending them)
You say that as if you think it means I will stop.
.
Actually, I'll be late anyway, as I don't go over 55mph. My mileage goes to crap at 60.
Your argument is based on a false premise, that bad loans were made so they could be bundled into 'mortgage backed securities'. Let me convert that false premise into a car analogy.
Henry Ford built cars so that he would have something to attach seat belts to, because he knew he could make a fortune in seat belt sales, decades later.
Wait a minute. We have a fiscal conservative (correct me if I am wrong) who not only isn't a bible-thumper, but who actually seems to hold organized religion in low regard.
You're going to make someone's head explode as they try to pigeonhole you into their "evil conservative" mental cubbyhole.
In fact, judging from the lack of responses to your post, we lost a few members just in the last couple hours.
Can you enlighten us on some questions I have?
What bank manager decided he would make more money by giving a loan to someone who would never be able to pay it back?
What loan officer first decided his career was safer if he accepted "Welfare payments" as income in determining eligibility for a loan?
The disconnect in your argument is that, for hundreds of years, bank managers and loan officers NEVER made decisions like those. Then suddenly they did. Do you actually think they made that break in lending policy all by themselves?
Question 2) Using Darwin's Theory of Evolution, explain the emergence of viruses from living predecessors.