That choice is at least justifiable - you don't name a government-bought ship after someone who defeated your navy. Snubbing Boaty McBoatface is just being humorless pricks.
Wonder what Sir David Attenboatface thinks about the change?
Edited prose (well, allegedly edited in/.'s case) is a higher standard. "Fewer votes" is correct; "less votes" is jarringly wrong, it grates on the ear.
There may not be an "official" standard for English, but read enough well-edited prose and you'll understand there is nevertheless a standard, for all in tents, and porpoises.
I can buy that - you're getting the difference by stealing government pensions, BTW (not that I oppose that).
$300 rent, $100 food, $30 utilities, $35 clothing, and $35 personal care in 2013;
What about that legally-mandated health care plan that costs $200/month then? (They can cost $1000/month when you're in your 60s, BTW - it's a common and drastic mistake in retirement planning to underestimate health care costs).
Yes, it will.
I didn't see much argument to that effect, Remember, economic cycles are caused not by actual unemployment, but by the much larger reduction in spending due to future fear of unemployment (and smaller business spending due to fears, but that's a smaller effect).
400 m^2 of sails might help more. There are a few sails on cargo ships out there as experiments. The fuel cost savings seems pretty good. Combining the two might be interesting.
Turn-based RPGs in general have been jobbed: no MUDs, Zork or Final Fantasy...yet.
I've just started playing Might and Magic I. 1987. Turn-based, simple first-person moving (one tile at a time), but all-text combat, and no auto-map. I'm enjoying the heck out of it, hand-drawn maps and all.
But that reminds me of what was probably the most popular turn-based RPG in history: Pokemon. A little too new for this year's inductees, but it reminds me that a whole new generation came to love a turn-based RPG with basically all-text combat,
Can't find the link, but I've read that it was an executive decision to ban it on Amazon self-publishing. Can't imagine the motivation for such an oddly-specific ban, but then I don't understand why dinosaur porn existed in the first place (OK, I'm such a geek that it would bother me that most birds, and so likely most dinos, wouldn't even have the necessary equipment. We can only hope that ducks (rape champion of the vertebrates) are unique).
Where can this 'bigfoot' and 'dinosaur' porn be found exactly? I need to do some research. I need to make sure I don't accidentally watch some.
I was wondering where they were getting the models for those movies. Especially dinosaurs, those actors would have to be pretty old by now, although Bigfoot's got to be getting close to celebrating his 100th birthday by now.
How did dinosaur porn get banned, exactly?
The context here is books, sorry. I've read that banning dinosaur porn from Amazon's self-publishing service was a direct call from the CEO, but that's rumor (it is the most oddly specific censorship this century, though).
We spend $306 B on "income security", basically all the "welfare" style programs. That's $1000/year each. Unemployment benefits cost $250B, and all the HUD assistance is small, maybe $50B, so all together we're looking at around $2000/year each for poverty programs.
We spend $899 B on Social Security. That's $3000/year each.
So that's $5000/year. Not really subsistence yet.
Look at it another way, total federal revenue (income, payroll, corporate taxes) is only $10,300/year per citizen. Average cost of health care in the US is around $3000/year. (Cheap Bronze plans on the exchange in 2015 are around $200/month), but these numbers vary a lot state-to-state.
I'm not seeing where we get to subsistence, even with half the government's income. Sure, of course we can always print enough money to pay any income you want "and we all had plenty of money, but there was nothing our money could buy".
BTW, it won't smooth out the economic cycles very much (I'm sure it will help a little), because it's going to be a small % of overall GDP, and people with jobs simply spend less (especially delay big purchases) when the future is uncertain.
It's not men that by romance novels - the product will be made for his wife. (Heck, it's not men who buy any kind of novels - 80% of sales are to women - but bodice rippers especially so, not to mention bigfoot porn, dinosaur porn (banned on Amazon!), werewolf porn, geez.)
I've thought about trying to write such an AI myself -- romance novels are very formulaic -- but there's a lot to it, certainly a lot more work than just writing a romance novel.
If you organize a road race, you're on the hook because it's obvious that people are going to cheat, though you might get away with it if people like the idea so much they make a movie about it. But if you want to avoid the liability risk, you have to organize things differently.
I'm a fan of both, but there's no question Brock Yates took a substantial liability risk, civil and perhaps criminal, in organizing the "Cannonball Run", a risk he wasn't willing to take as a mature adult.
The problem is, you can only fund a "subsidence dividend" at the expense of medicare (the federal government's largest expense), and weren't not even close to funding medicare enough. Health care for the elderly runs somewhere around $15k/year, and tends to be very expensive in the last year, $50-200k. We're not there yet, if we want to do both (unless we just stop funding med and pharma research).
My comment was responding to the idea that you could somehow cure the "homeless problem" (which is, to most people, the problem of having to see homeless people) by giving people money. Nope. You can feel better about yourself, however, which is the usual goal.
Whatever you subsidize, you get more of. If SF was the best place to get money as a homeless person, you would not see a decline in the number of homeless people.
lets sue random company who had zero to do with the incident
The obvious and predicable consequence of Snapchat's decision was to encourage reckless behavior. They certainly had more than "zero" to do with this. Enough to be liable? I don't know. But enough that it's not frivolous.
My solution: A pure consumptive tax on all goods and services
Unconstitutional, which is probably for the best as a sales tax would never replace the income tax, it would just be piled on.
Instead, what about a simple fixed tax rate, for all income, personal and corporate, all (inflation-adjusted) capital gains, no exceptions, no special cases. Make it a payroll tax, and most people never have to file anything. Let the broker collect the tax on investments, and that's taken care of too. No system to game.
They had a court order to do it and that is a felony.
So these obscenely privacy-violating devices that totally ignore the Constitution (100% of the intercepted traffic was innocent people, after all - wiretaps are supposed to be very specific), which were originally pitched as "for national security and terrorism" now have the bar lowered to "violent felony" (where no one was actually hurt). This year. The bar will be lower still 5 years from now. The government never gives up power.
Would a reasonable person believe that people would stay within the bounds of the law in such a competition? I don't think so. Seems pretty obvious how this would play out.
so they go after the person with the money no matter how unjustifiable it is.
Well, a jury will decide how unjustifiable it is. I'm not sure myself, but it clearly rises above "frivolous".
If you pay someone $100 to punch someone else in the face, you've still committed a crime. Encouraging irresponsible behavior in others is irresponsible.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what he was doing was dangerous.
The victim here wasn't speeding, or doing anything dangerous. It's not the person speeding who is suing.
Why assume life out there would be carbon based, breath, and require water? We're looking for life outside of this little snowglobe, but we've placed a mirror infront of the telescope
Every single scientist looking for life elsewhere understands this. Yup, all of them. So, you have to ask yourself, if you want to look for "it's life, Jim, but not as we know it", what exactly do you look for?
With very limited data indeed, just a barely-resolvable modification to the light of a distant star as that light passes by its planet, we have a chance to detect certainly things about it's atmosphere. With that tiny amount of data, a scientist can look for evidence of life as we know it, by looking for some very distinctive, known, signatures.
Of course the SETI guys are looking for someone trying to contact us, and we may one day discover some cosmic megastructure, but aside from oddball stuff like that, what would you look for?
It is very similar to what is happening on TV right now, except that the measure of popularity of content is determined by rather silly and outdated Nielsen rating system.
Well, for anyone with a TV connected to the internet, the new ratings system is a screenshot (well, a hash of one I'm sure) sent to the ratings company every so often, to determine directly what you're watching, even if it's a torrent. You do know that's what already happens, right?
No shadiness, no copyright infringement, no privacy.
We're sorry, the content you have selected is not available in your country.
Venus experienced such "run-away warming**" about 3 or 4 billion years ago. The principles are fairly simple,
No, they're really not. The Earth has about 10,000 times as much carbon in the rock cycle as it does in the oceans (the atmosphere is a rounding error). To reach Venus's level of CO2 you need to release all the CO2 in the rock cycle. Boiling the oceans won't come anywhere close - you need to melt the crust.
Venus doesn't have any surface features more than about 100 M years old - the crust melted, very recently in geological terms. (It's a big mystery, alongside the mystery of why Venus (almost) doesn't rotate, which would have fucked its climate even if the crust didn't melt.)
This is the sort of nonsense that makes it impossible to have a rational discussion about global warming.
natural carbon sequestration in the form of coal or oil will ever happen again
Long term, that's unimportant, as that was never a large amount compared to the geological cycle. Short term both are unimportant, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
That choice is at least justifiable - you don't name a government-bought ship after someone who defeated your navy. Snubbing Boaty McBoatface is just being humorless pricks.
Wonder what Sir David Attenboatface thinks about the change?
Either is acceptable to most people.
Most people like reality TV and top 40 bands.
Edited prose (well, allegedly edited in /.'s case) is a higher standard. "Fewer votes" is correct; "less votes" is jarringly wrong, it grates on the ear.
There may not be an "official" standard for English, but read enough well-edited prose and you'll understand there is nevertheless a standard, for all in tents, and porpoises.
$6,558/year *per* *individual* *adult*.
I can buy that - you're getting the difference by stealing government pensions, BTW (not that I oppose that).
$300 rent, $100 food, $30 utilities, $35 clothing, and $35 personal care in 2013;
What about that legally-mandated health care plan that costs $200/month then? (They can cost $1000/month when you're in your 60s, BTW - it's a common and drastic mistake in retirement planning to underestimate health care costs).
Yes, it will.
I didn't see much argument to that effect, Remember, economic cycles are caused not by actual unemployment, but by the much larger reduction in spending due to future fear of unemployment (and smaller business spending due to fears, but that's a smaller effect).
400 m^2 of sails might help more. There are a few sails on cargo ships out there as experiments. The fuel cost savings seems pretty good. Combining the two might be interesting.
Turn-based RPGs in general have been jobbed: no MUDs, Zork or Final Fantasy...yet.
I've just started playing Might and Magic I. 1987. Turn-based, simple first-person moving (one tile at a time), but all-text combat, and no auto-map. I'm enjoying the heck out of it, hand-drawn maps and all.
But that reminds me of what was probably the most popular turn-based RPG in history: Pokemon. A little too new for this year's inductees, but it reminds me that a whole new generation came to love a turn-based RPG with basically all-text combat,
Can't find the link, but I've read that it was an executive decision to ban it on Amazon self-publishing. Can't imagine the motivation for such an oddly-specific ban, but then I don't understand why dinosaur porn existed in the first place (OK, I'm such a geek that it would bother me that most birds, and so likely most dinos, wouldn't even have the necessary equipment. We can only hope that ducks (rape champion of the vertebrates) are unique).
Where can this 'bigfoot' and 'dinosaur' porn be found exactly? I need to do some research. I need to make sure I don't accidentally watch some.
I was wondering where they were getting the models for those movies. Especially dinosaurs, those actors would have to be pretty old by now, although Bigfoot's got to be getting close to celebrating his 100th birthday by now.
How did dinosaur porn get banned, exactly?
The context here is books, sorry. I've read that banning dinosaur porn from Amazon's self-publishing service was a direct call from the CEO, but that's rumor (it is the most oddly specific censorship this century, though).
Best link for actual numbers I've found is http://usdebtclock.org/
We spend $306 B on "income security", basically all the "welfare" style programs. That's $1000/year each. Unemployment benefits cost $250B, and all the HUD assistance is small, maybe $50B, so all together we're looking at around $2000/year each for poverty programs.
We spend $899 B on Social Security. That's $3000/year each.
So that's $5000/year. Not really subsistence yet.
Look at it another way, total federal revenue (income, payroll, corporate taxes) is only $10,300/year per citizen. Average cost of health care in the US is around $3000/year. (Cheap Bronze plans on the exchange in 2015 are around $200/month), but these numbers vary a lot state-to-state.
I'm not seeing where we get to subsistence, even with half the government's income. Sure, of course we can always print enough money to pay any income you want "and we all had plenty of money, but there was nothing our money could buy".
BTW, it won't smooth out the economic cycles very much (I'm sure it will help a little), because it's going to be a small % of overall GDP, and people with jobs simply spend less (especially delay big purchases) when the future is uncertain.
It's not men that by romance novels - the product will be made for his wife. (Heck, it's not men who buy any kind of novels - 80% of sales are to women - but bodice rippers especially so, not to mention bigfoot porn, dinosaur porn (banned on Amazon!), werewolf porn, geez.)
I've thought about trying to write such an AI myself -- romance novels are very formulaic -- but there's a lot to it, certainly a lot more work than just writing a romance novel.
If you organize a road race, you're on the hook because it's obvious that people are going to cheat, though you might get away with it if people like the idea so much they make a movie about it. But if you want to avoid the liability risk, you have to organize things differently.
I'm a fan of both, but there's no question Brock Yates took a substantial liability risk, civil and perhaps criminal, in organizing the "Cannonball Run", a risk he wasn't willing to take as a mature adult.
The problem is, you can only fund a "subsidence dividend" at the expense of medicare (the federal government's largest expense), and weren't not even close to funding medicare enough. Health care for the elderly runs somewhere around $15k/year, and tends to be very expensive in the last year, $50-200k. We're not there yet, if we want to do both (unless we just stop funding med and pharma research).
My comment was responding to the idea that you could somehow cure the "homeless problem" (which is, to most people, the problem of having to see homeless people) by giving people money. Nope. You can feel better about yourself, however, which is the usual goal.
How about dropping millennials from helicopters? They seem to be the root of the robot unemployment problem.
"God as my witness, I thought millennials could fly!"
Whatever you subsidize, you get more of. If SF was the best place to get money as a homeless person, you would not see a decline in the number of homeless people.
lets sue random company who had zero to do with the incident
The obvious and predicable consequence of Snapchat's decision was to encourage reckless behavior. They certainly had more than "zero" to do with this. Enough to be liable? I don't know. But enough that it's not frivolous.
My solution: A pure consumptive tax on all goods and services
Unconstitutional, which is probably for the best as a sales tax would never replace the income tax, it would just be piled on.
Instead, what about a simple fixed tax rate, for all income, personal and corporate, all (inflation-adjusted) capital gains, no exceptions, no special cases. Make it a payroll tax, and most people never have to file anything. Let the broker collect the tax on investments, and that's taken care of too. No system to game.
They had a court order to do it and that is a felony.
So these obscenely privacy-violating devices that totally ignore the Constitution (100% of the intercepted traffic was innocent people, after all - wiretaps are supposed to be very specific), which were originally pitched as "for national security and terrorism" now have the bar lowered to "violent felony" (where no one was actually hurt). This year. The bar will be lower still 5 years from now. The government never gives up power.
Would a reasonable person believe that people would stay within the bounds of the law in such a competition? I don't think so. Seems pretty obvious how this would play out.
so they go after the person with the money no matter how unjustifiable it is.
Well, a jury will decide how unjustifiable it is. I'm not sure myself, but it clearly rises above "frivolous".
If you pay someone $100 to punch someone else in the face, you've still committed a crime. Encouraging irresponsible behavior in others is irresponsible.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what he was doing was dangerous.
The victim here wasn't speeding, or doing anything dangerous. It's not the person speeding who is suing.
Why assume life out there would be carbon based, breath, and require water? We're looking for life outside of this little snowglobe, but we've placed a mirror infront of the telescope
Every single scientist looking for life elsewhere understands this. Yup, all of them. So, you have to ask yourself, if you want to look for "it's life, Jim, but not as we know it", what exactly do you look for?
With very limited data indeed, just a barely-resolvable modification to the light of a distant star as that light passes by its planet, we have a chance to detect certainly things about it's atmosphere. With that tiny amount of data, a scientist can look for evidence of life as we know it, by looking for some very distinctive, known, signatures.
Of course the SETI guys are looking for someone trying to contact us, and we may one day discover some cosmic megastructure, but aside from oddball stuff like that, what would you look for?
Who the fuck is PAYING these folks to sit and watch them...???
Last year, more people physically traveled to a stadium to watch the League of Legends finals than did so for the College basketball finals.
Think about that a bit.
Well, you were the one asserting that it could. That's the exact sort of nonsense that makes rational discussion about global warming impossible.
It is very similar to what is happening on TV right now, except that the measure of popularity of content is determined by rather silly and outdated Nielsen rating system.
Well, for anyone with a TV connected to the internet, the new ratings system is a screenshot (well, a hash of one I'm sure) sent to the ratings company every so often, to determine directly what you're watching, even if it's a torrent. You do know that's what already happens, right?
No shadiness, no copyright infringement, no privacy.
We're sorry, the content you have selected is not available in your country.
Hotter bodies radiate more. The Earth can't reach Venus's temps without Venus's atmosphere. Basic science.
Venus experienced such "run-away warming**" about 3 or 4 billion years ago. The principles are fairly simple,
No, they're really not. The Earth has about 10,000 times as much carbon in the rock cycle as it does in the oceans (the atmosphere is a rounding error). To reach Venus's level of CO2 you need to release all the CO2 in the rock cycle. Boiling the oceans won't come anywhere close - you need to melt the crust.
Venus doesn't have any surface features more than about 100 M years old - the crust melted, very recently in geological terms. (It's a big mystery, alongside the mystery of why Venus (almost) doesn't rotate, which would have fucked its climate even if the crust didn't melt.)
This is the sort of nonsense that makes it impossible to have a rational discussion about global warming.
natural carbon sequestration in the form of coal or oil will ever happen again
Long term, that's unimportant, as that was never a large amount compared to the geological cycle. Short term both are unimportant, of course.