That is not only not a domain confiscation, that's not even the government. It's a misuse of the courts/legal system on par with a SLAPP, and something rather different. Yes mistakes happen, yes there is some worry.
However, my problem with the "citation needed" comment, is it often very hard to impossible to find a reputable "none have existed" source, without pointing to *every* example where it could happen. In particularly large data sets, this isn't even terribly useful.
Eh. There are things to do in C/C++ that are trivial, that take some real creativity in Java or Python without invoking the C/C++. Likewise, there are things that are trivial in Java or Python that would take a lot of effort to program in C/C++.
I'm more inclined to think that each language tends to focus on a different mindset and skill set. Though I'd also argue that Java is a poorly thought out language, and I can't blame it's programmers for all the issues. Personally I find C to be less of a headache.
The ISP is using the money to fund the sum total of all of the connections, each person is effectively funding an amount of connection proportional to their fees. The ISP bases the fees and how much bandwidth they obtain on esitmated use from historical averages. Anyone who has had an ISP that has suffered from oversubscribing (most) will know that they don't allocate for all users to use 100%.
Lets say the ISP has the two users mentioned. We each are paying for half of the overall allocated bandwidth. The ISP will look at historical usage and allocate appropriately. Our usage falls into the same 'plan', so we pay the same amount. I, however, am using the plan nearly fully, while my neighbors usage is too high for a lower plan to be sufficient (not a cunt, as certain retarded cunts might suggest, simply someone who's use doesn't match the available plans very well, and doesn't feel like using bandwidth simply to use bandwidth). Now, the ISP allocating accordingly, charges us for the average usage. Me using ~66% of the bandwidth and my neighbor using ~34%. Effectively, my neibhbor is paying for 16% of my internet.
Except, it's averaged across thousands of users. The companies don't buy bandwidth, assuming everyone will use all of their allocation, that wouldn't be feasible, they wouldn't get the sales, they target the average use. This allows them to charge a lower average price to maximize the profit by making up in per-user profit, with number of users. The larger numbers also, since we are working with a probabilistic data, reduces the "spikes".
And other people pay for what you use. And theres a large scale for economies of scale.
And, oh, with a commercial, you pay for what other people use also!
Example: Lets say I use 80GB/month down and 60GB/month up. My neighbors with the same plan use only 60GB/month down and 5GB/month up.
We pay the same, but I use more, so in fact, since all the paid money goes for the ISPs backbone connection, they are in part, paying for the infrastructure for some of my connection.
But, since it is a company doing it, I guess that's ok?
Find a place that has a lot of property owned by CEOs and Board of Directory members who get all kinds of bonuses while cutting jobs, losing money for the company, etc.
Maybe areas where people live that have a habit of favoring profit margins that facility money flow primarily to the wealthy rather than facilitating money flow throughout the economy?
That's where the difference comes in. They can only raise prices so much, before they stop being able to "make the sale". A this point, they have to start cutting into profits, as long as they can still keep a positive profit margin, I'm fine with this.
Not just a well function government, but a well functioning overall system.
Ex: If a higher percentage of income is retained by a smaller and smaller percentage of people (as has happened in the last few decades), and those people are the people who do the investing, etc. to earn more income, eventually they have less and less incentive to invest, and this reduces jobs, and the economy tanks.
The taxing and the projects at least help produce jobs, even if in the government and associated sectors, that would have instead been lining pockets. Yes they pass on the cost to the consumer, but eventually, if the price becomes too high, they have to chose between a smaller (but still positive) profit margin, or no sale. Typically the choice will be to at least have a profit margin.
Star Trek had more tech focus, but it also tended to have a decent bit of social commentary merged in. IIRC, Gene Roddenberry saw it more as a vehicle for social commentary than anything else. The "sci-fi" stuff was more of a prop to make it more enjoyable to watch.
That being said, I like Star Trek, Star Wars, Firefly, Babylon 5, Dr. Who, Blake 7...
They all are different shows with different goals, and even if plot lines overlap, they are done with different angles and perspectives.
Solo would kill Kirk I disagree, a Klingon would probably beat a wookie, albeit barely. Obi Wan would only be defeated by Spock if caught by surprise, so it'd either be quick and uninteresting (Spock Wins), or quick and interesting (for those who like "interesting" deaths).
Actually, I wonder if the reason is that half of it is losing money at a horrible pace, and by splitting the two, they can hopefully allow half the ship to keep sailing.
Yes, if you go to Thailand and grab yourself some Stem Cell treatment, they'll do that, and that is fucking dangerous.
However, there are other treatments, where they use the stem cells to grow differentiated cells (either in-situ or in-vitro), and use THOSE to treat the patient. It is still stem cell treatment, but not necessarily nearly as dangerous.
I believe there are cases where the treatments are known to be effective.
As for safe, I think, due to the nature of the beast, we have 20-30 years of testing, minimal before we can determine that, due to potential long-term effects (however unlikely they may be).
Maybe dodging proper testing, but if he wants to be a guinea pig, I'd say he's not dodging proper science, he's helping it along by providing a test subject.
Most Christians do not realize Jesus was pretty cool to the people of different faith than him, allowing them their own beliefs so long as they didn't bother the people of his faith.
Jesus, however was extremely intolerant. At least, he was intolerant to those of his own faith who abused it for their own benefits. I can only imagine what he'd do to the Christian right, right now.
Slashdot Mirror
That is not only not a domain confiscation, that's not even the government. It's a misuse of the courts/legal system on par with a SLAPP, and something rather different. Yes mistakes happen, yes there is some worry.
However, my problem with the "citation needed" comment, is it often very hard to impossible to find a reputable "none have existed" source, without pointing to *every* example where it could happen. In particularly large data sets, this isn't even terribly useful.
Eh. There are things to do in C/C++ that are trivial, that take some real creativity in Java or Python without invoking the C/C++. Likewise, there are things that are trivial in Java or Python that would take a lot of effort to program in C/C++.
I'm more inclined to think that each language tends to focus on a different mindset and skill set. Though I'd also argue that Java is a poorly thought out language, and I can't blame it's programmers for all the issues. Personally I find C to be less of a headache.
umm, I can think of one example with worse programmers on average than any of those.
COBOL
Python has threading. I've used it, a lot.
I believe the module you are looking for is cryptically named "threading".
Rather than saying citation needed on something like this, why not show *ONE* case of the opposite?
There are plenty of good Java programmers. Yes there are more crap java programmers. But I can't think of any language for which that ISN'T true.
That's exactly my point
The ISP is using the money to fund the sum total of all of the connections, each person is effectively funding an amount of connection proportional to their fees. The ISP bases the fees and how much bandwidth they obtain on esitmated use from historical averages. Anyone who has had an ISP that has suffered from oversubscribing (most) will know that they don't allocate for all users to use 100%.
Lets say the ISP has the two users mentioned. We each are paying for half of the overall allocated bandwidth. The ISP will look at historical usage and allocate appropriately. Our usage falls into the same 'plan', so we pay the same amount.
I, however, am using the plan nearly fully, while my neighbors usage is too high for a lower plan to be sufficient (not a cunt, as certain retarded cunts might suggest, simply someone who's use doesn't match the available plans very well, and doesn't feel like using bandwidth simply to use bandwidth).
Now, the ISP allocating accordingly, charges us for the average usage. Me using ~66% of the bandwidth and my neighbor using ~34%. Effectively, my neibhbor is paying for 16% of my internet.
Except, it's averaged across thousands of users. The companies don't buy bandwidth, assuming everyone will use all of their allocation, that wouldn't be feasible, they wouldn't get the sales, they target the average use. This allows them to charge a lower average price to maximize the profit by making up in per-user profit, with number of users. The larger numbers also, since we are working with a probabilistic data, reduces the "spikes".
And other people pay for what you use.
And theres a large scale for economies of scale.
And, oh, with a commercial, you pay for what other people use also!
Example: Lets say I use 80GB/month down and 60GB/month up.
My neighbors with the same plan use only 60GB/month down and 5GB/month up.
We pay the same, but I use more, so in fact, since all the paid money goes for the ISPs backbone connection, they are in part, paying for the infrastructure for some of my connection.
But, since it is a company doing it, I guess that's ok?
Actually, this looks like an honest mistake a spam filter could make.
Spam typically takes many different hosts (botnet) and sends different mails containing the same URL from each.
This is many different sources, with mail containing the same url.
False positives can happen. It's just that this one happened on something high profile.
In front of where they work in wall street?
Find a place that has a lot of property owned by CEOs and Board of Directory members who get all kinds of bonuses while cutting jobs, losing money for the company, etc.
Maybe areas where people live that have a habit of favoring profit margins that facility money flow primarily to the wealthy rather than facilitating money flow throughout the economy?
No, he stopped at women, I thought.
No. I'd be too unconscious.
Omnisexual might be a better term, they'll go for whoever swims by.
That's where the difference comes in. They can only raise prices so much, before they stop being able to "make the sale". A this point, they have to start cutting into profits, as long as they can still keep a positive profit margin, I'm fine with this.
(they being companies and corporations)
Not just a well function government, but a well functioning overall system.
Ex:
If a higher percentage of income is retained by a smaller and smaller percentage of people (as has happened in the last few decades), and those people are the people who do the investing, etc. to earn more income, eventually they have less and less incentive to invest, and this reduces jobs, and the economy tanks.
The taxing and the projects at least help produce jobs, even if in the government and associated sectors, that would have instead been lining pockets. Yes they pass on the cost to the consumer, but eventually, if the price becomes too high, they have to chose between a smaller (but still positive) profit margin, or no sale. Typically the choice will be to at least have a profit margin.
And for some people it means taxing more on money that isn't required for living, than on money needed to make a minimal or even modest existence.
Star Trek had more tech focus, but it also tended to have a decent bit of social commentary merged in. IIRC, Gene Roddenberry saw it more as a vehicle for social commentary than anything else. The "sci-fi" stuff was more of a prop to make it more enjoyable to watch.
That being said, I like Star Trek, Star Wars, Firefly, Babylon 5, Dr. Who, Blake 7...
They all are different shows with different goals, and even if plot lines overlap, they are done with different angles and perspectives.
Seriously? Adding Ivonova to the fight? That's just unfair, un-called for, and cruel as hell.
Bester would be better against a Jedi, and therein, would be an interesting competition
I'd say:
Solo would kill Kirk
I disagree, a Klingon would probably beat a wookie, albeit barely.
Obi Wan would only be defeated by Spock if caught by surprise, so it'd either be quick and uninteresting (Spock Wins), or quick and interesting (for those who like "interesting" deaths).
Actually, I wonder if the reason is that half of it is losing money at a horrible pace, and by splitting the two, they can hopefully allow half the ship to keep sailing.
Yes, if you go to Thailand and grab yourself some Stem Cell treatment, they'll do that, and that is fucking dangerous.
However, there are other treatments, where they use the stem cells to grow differentiated cells (either in-situ or in-vitro), and use THOSE to treat the patient. It is still stem cell treatment, but not necessarily nearly as dangerous.
I believe there are cases where the treatments are known to be effective.
As for safe, I think, due to the nature of the beast, we have 20-30 years of testing, minimal before we can determine that, due to potential long-term effects (however unlikely they may be).
Maybe dodging proper testing, but if he wants to be a guinea pig, I'd say he's not dodging proper science, he's helping it along by providing a test subject.
Most Christians do not realize Jesus was pretty cool to the people of different faith than him, allowing them their own beliefs so long as they didn't bother the people of his faith.
Jesus, however was extremely intolerant. At least, he was intolerant to those of his own faith who abused it for their own benefits. I can only imagine what he'd do to the Christian right, right now.