When in 1578 Queen Elizabeth I of England dissolved Ballinskelligs following the rebellion of the Earl of Desmond, under whose protection it had been, the island passed from the Augustinian Order to John Butler. However, although the monastery no longer existed, it continued to be a place of pilgrimage. Around 1826 the owner sold the island to the Corporation for Preserving and Improving the Port of Dublin (later to become the Commissioners of Irish Lights), who built two lighthouses on the Atlantic side.
Sorry to burst your little libertarian bubble there, dude. Better luck next time.
I was a Missile Launch Officer in an earlier life and it was without a doubt the worst job that I ever had. Boredom with massive micromanagement. Drive 2-3 hours to get to site, sit in an underground control center about the size of an RV for 24 hours, drive back 2-3 hours to base. Seven times a month, then a few days per month for training. Would never recommend that job to anyone that has an once of creativity.
I for one am very glad that you (and all of your colleagues) spent your time bored.
The article says that most of the galaxies are moving apart, but the Local Group is moving closer. Why would the local group be different than the other galaxies? Are there other groups of galaxies that are seeing the same effect, or is the Local Group an anomaly?
The galaxies in the local group are close enough together to be a gravitationally bound system, and are therefore "decoupled" from the expansion. This is true of any cluster of galaxies, and there are many, many examples of such systems in the universe.
It's the same reason your body doesn't get bigger as the universe expands: the binding forces holding it together are stronger than the (tiny) force pulling it apart due to cosmological expansion.
lHow can they possibly tell how much of the matter is "Dark"? I can get the idea of what they're doing - using the relative speeds of each local galaxy to determine the masses contained within each, but how could they possible determine how much mass in each galaxy wouldn't be seen by using light within the bounds of the visible spectrum?
You can see the light. So you do this:
1: Measure the mass of the galaxy.
2: Add up all the mass from the stuff you can see.
Subtract (2) from (1).
You don't really believe that, do you? There are already tons of reports rolling in of people being denied treatments, being told that the cost of a procedure wouldn't go towards their deductible, and finding out that their $150/mo insurance program has a $25,000 deductible attached to it.
Which, no doubt, you believe utterly uncritically.
I'll start a pool and take odds on that utopian conclusion - I'll bet against it myself.
Would you rather life insurance companies base their actuarial decisions on crystal balls or witch doctors? Personally, I wouldn't buy insurance from a company that didn't use the most accurate and complete health statistics available. Such a company would likely fold before I died and my beneficiaries could collect on the policy.
As far as insurance companies trying to find excuses to weasel out of paying claims, it's pretty fucking hard for a life insurance company to do that, no? Once you're insured, it's pretty unequivocal when you have a claim.
Sure, they can't outright deny you coverage, but what stops them from making your coverage so expensive you can't afford the deductibles? The answer is, "not a damn thing."
Which is why it's so great that the ACA has rate controls to prevent this kind of thing from happening, and mandates that everybody get insurance, so the many low-risk insured create a pool which makes it possible to cover the high-risk population in an affordable way.
Only some types of insurance. I have been denied life insurance because of a pre-existing condition, for example (putting my entire family at risk in the process).
This is entirely reasonable. Most life insurance companies require a physical exam before they'll insure you. They also keep tons of actuarial data on health risks already. Google will just be duplicating this -- and probably doing a better job of it, which will likely make it easier for people with pre-existing conditions to get life insurance, not harder.
The sun's rotational period is about 25 days, meaning if it missed pointing at us by a week, then is was shooting into the solar system at a 100 degree angle from us. That doesn't sound to me like a "barely".
Somebody please mod parent "Insightful". TFA is a bunch of FUD.
For one thing you've got all the "green jobs" "green economy" crap that the democrats pushed and used to justify shutting down existing industry and business... putting big taxes on such businesses... etc... on the theory that it would create a new green economy.
Because the democrats think it is literally impossible to kill the economy.
Or... just maybe... you've got all the "green jobs" "green economy" crap because people with foresight realize that there are whole new industries waiting to be built which will provide a sound basis for growth and wealth creation for the next hundred years or so, as opposed to sitting on our asses and screeching about how that won't work, drill, Baby, drill! And, predictably, the Old Guard is howling about being made to actually pay for the full damage they are doing to the world.
Great. This is going to be like trying to talk to one of those software customer service reps on the phone: insanely inefficient. As long as there is nothing unusual about your checkin, existing kiosks work great. If there is something unusual, the fake human won't be able to handle it any better than a standard interface will, and you'll need a real human.
The FAA had made the current policies to prevent idiots who think they know everything (i.e. people like you) who have more money than brains from getting a UAV and hurting people by dropping it on someones head, though their roof or flying it into another aircraft. [...] As someone who flies UAVs for fun and profit (yes, I fly them illegally) I am in 100% agreement with the FAA at this point. I've been flying RC for almost 30 years and universally, the people who scream the loudest about the FAA regulation and policies are the idiots who get people hurt.
This little rant reminds me very much of the foaming at the mouth that occurred when cheap GMRS radios first came on the market: a hobby that had previously been limited to a small, insular group of uber-geeky hobbyists suddenly became accessible to anybody with a few bucks to spend, and they couldn't fucking stand it. Times change. It takes very little skill to fly a modern quadcopter (and, I might add, so so safely). There will always be dumbasses in the world. But the genie is not going back in the bottle.
What is being complained about is the double standards. Women have a hell of a lot of leeway in what they can dress with - men basically start with the full 3-piece suit and remove items based on how formal it is but you're not going to find the plethora of variation that you do with female dress.
Um. Whatever it might be, that's not "harassment".
What is undoubtedly harassment if you decide to decide to throw "some shit" at a coworker because you have decided that her tits are distracting you.
I'd imagine if I wore a v-neck that went half way to my naval to show off my manly chest hair and a codpiece at the next code review meeting it would certainly be considered sexual harassment.
What you're complaining about is the "harassment" that your female coworkers dress in a way that makes you want them so much you can't control yourself, not that what they're wearing would make them want to gouge their eyeballs out with a ball point pen. When you appreciate the difference between the two, you get to be a human being.
Slashdot Mirror
This.
Personally I took the here's a library, then went and learned some stuff method.
Then perhaps you might understand why somebody shelling out a hundred thousand dollars might have slightly higher expectations.
... then it ain't science. End of story.
Thanks Obama!!!
Obama is also responsible for why you can't get a date.
That person should tell the UN to mind its own business!
The island is owned by the Commissioners of Irish Lights, i.e. the Irish government.
From the UNESCO web page on Sceilg Mhichíl:
When in 1578 Queen Elizabeth I of England dissolved Ballinskelligs following the rebellion of the Earl of Desmond, under whose protection it had been, the island passed from the Augustinian Order to John Butler. However, although the monastery no longer existed, it continued to be a place of pilgrimage. Around 1826 the owner sold the island to the Corporation for Preserving and Improving the Port of Dublin (later to become the Commissioners of Irish Lights), who built two lighthouses on the Atlantic side.
Sorry to burst your little libertarian bubble there, dude. Better luck next time.
I was a Missile Launch Officer in an earlier life and it was without a doubt the worst job that I ever had. Boredom with massive micromanagement. Drive 2-3 hours to get to site, sit in an underground control center about the size of an RV for 24 hours, drive back 2-3 hours to base. Seven times a month, then a few days per month for training. Would never recommend that job to anyone that has an once of creativity.
I for one am very glad that you (and all of your colleagues) spent your time bored.
The article says that most of the galaxies are moving apart, but the Local Group is moving closer. Why would the local group be different than the other galaxies? Are there other groups of galaxies that are seeing the same effect, or is the Local Group an anomaly?
The galaxies in the local group are close enough together to be a gravitationally bound system, and are therefore "decoupled" from the expansion. This is true of any cluster of galaxies, and there are many, many examples of such systems in the universe.
It's the same reason your body doesn't get bigger as the universe expands: the binding forces holding it together are stronger than the (tiny) force pulling it apart due to cosmological expansion.
lHow can they possibly tell how much of the matter is "Dark"? I can get the idea of what they're doing - using the relative speeds of each local galaxy to determine the masses contained within each, but how could they possible determine how much mass in each galaxy wouldn't be seen by using light within the bounds of the visible spectrum?
You can see the light. So you do this: 1: Measure the mass of the galaxy. 2: Add up all the mass from the stuff you can see. Subtract (2) from (1).
Q: What is the launch code for all U.S. Minuteman missiles?
A. 00000000
You don't really believe that, do you? There are already tons of reports rolling in of people being denied treatments, being told that the cost of a procedure wouldn't go towards their deductible, and finding out that their $150/mo insurance program has a $25,000 deductible attached to it.
Which, no doubt, you believe utterly uncritically.
I'll start a pool and take odds on that utopian conclusion - I'll bet against it myself.
Would you rather life insurance companies base their actuarial decisions on crystal balls or witch doctors? Personally, I wouldn't buy insurance from a company that didn't use the most accurate and complete health statistics available. Such a company would likely fold before I died and my beneficiaries could collect on the policy.
As far as insurance companies trying to find excuses to weasel out of paying claims, it's pretty fucking hard for a life insurance company to do that, no? Once you're insured, it's pretty unequivocal when you have a claim.
Just make sure you melt down all the prototypes when you're done, we don't need another Lore incident...
Wrong Noonien Singh, dude.
Lol, naivete can be funny.
Sure, they can't outright deny you coverage, but what stops them from making your coverage so expensive you can't afford the deductibles? The answer is, "not a damn thing."
Which is why it's so great that the ACA has rate controls to prevent this kind of thing from happening, and mandates that everybody get insurance, so the many low-risk insured create a pool which makes it possible to cover the high-risk population in an affordable way.
Only some types of insurance. I have been denied life insurance because of a pre-existing condition, for example (putting my entire family at risk in the process).
This is entirely reasonable. Most life insurance companies require a physical exam before they'll insure you. They also keep tons of actuarial data on health risks already. Google will just be duplicating this -- and probably doing a better job of it, which will likely make it easier for people with pre-existing conditions to get life insurance, not harder.
That Google will sell this information to insurance companies who will use it to deny insurance to even more people than they already do.
Which is one reason why it is so great that it is now illegal under the ACA to deny insurance due to pre-existing conditions.
Now you can target them like a laser!
The sun's rotational period is about 25 days, meaning if it missed pointing at us by a week, then is was shooting into the solar system at a 100 degree angle from us. That doesn't sound to me like a "barely".
Somebody please mod parent "Insightful". TFA is a bunch of FUD.
Now if we could only block all of the other disruptive behavior from Congress.
Fuck, with this bunch of chuckleheads, we can't even get roads and bridges maintained.
Water? You mean like from the toilet?
For one thing you've got all the "green jobs" "green economy" crap that the democrats pushed and used to justify shutting down existing industry and business... putting big taxes on such businesses... etc... on the theory that it would create a new green economy.
Because the democrats think it is literally impossible to kill the economy.
Or ... just maybe ... you've got all the "green jobs" "green economy" crap because people with foresight realize that there are whole new industries waiting to be built which will provide a sound basis for growth and wealth creation for the next hundred years or so, as opposed to sitting on our asses and screeching about how that won't work, drill, Baby, drill! And, predictably, the Old Guard is howling about being made to actually pay for the full damage they are doing to the world.
Just sayin'.
Fuck. Accidentally moderated this "funny". Posting to cancel it out.
Great. This is going to be like trying to talk to one of those software customer service reps on the phone: insanely inefficient. As long as there is nothing unusual about your checkin, existing kiosks work great. If there is something unusual, the fake human won't be able to handle it any better than a standard interface will, and you'll need a real human.
The FAA had made the current policies to prevent idiots who think they know everything (i.e. people like you) who have more money than brains from getting a UAV and hurting people by dropping it on someones head, though their roof or flying it into another aircraft. [...] As someone who flies UAVs for fun and profit (yes, I fly them illegally) I am in 100% agreement with the FAA at this point. I've been flying RC for almost 30 years and universally, the people who scream the loudest about the FAA regulation and policies are the idiots who get people hurt.
This little rant reminds me very much of the foaming at the mouth that occurred when cheap GMRS radios first came on the market: a hobby that had previously been limited to a small, insular group of uber-geeky hobbyists suddenly became accessible to anybody with a few bucks to spend, and they couldn't fucking stand it. Times change. It takes very little skill to fly a modern quadcopter (and, I might add, so so safely). There will always be dumbasses in the world. But the genie is not going back in the bottle.
What is being complained about is the double standards. Women have a hell of a lot of leeway in what they can dress with - men basically start with the full 3-piece suit and remove items based on how formal it is but you're not going to find the plethora of variation that you do with female dress.
Um. Whatever it might be, that's not "harassment".
What is undoubtedly harassment if you decide to decide to throw "some shit" at a coworker because you have decided that her tits are distracting you.
I'd imagine if I wore a v-neck that went half way to my naval to show off my manly chest hair and a codpiece at the next code review meeting it would certainly be considered sexual harassment.
What you're complaining about is the "harassment" that your female coworkers dress in a way that makes you want them so much you can't control yourself, not that what they're wearing would make them want to gouge their eyeballs out with a ball point pen. When you appreciate the difference between the two, you get to be a human being.