What percentage of the degree is taken up with Gen-Ed? If it's just 1 or 2 courses, then maybe it's not that bad.
About half. A lot of people go to a community college for two years to knock out their general ed requirements before they transfer the credits to a university to pay the big bucks for the interesting and useful classes while they finish off the four year degree. It really sucks.
A really smart company would let you request a call from their website though.
Amazon does that, and it's awesome. If you're already signed in, you can give them a specific order or item you're calling about or whatever and the agent will already have all your information and all the information of whatever you're calling about in front of them and you don't have to deal with trying to tell them everything over the phone. Saves them time and hassle, saves you time and hassle. It's beautiful.
Well we're already well on the way to cheap power supplies, at least on handhelds. Most smartphones these days are dropping their proprietary bullshit for Micro USB. The problem with laptops for now is that they don't all necessarily have the same power requirements. Modern smartphones are designed to charge on USB, which already has an energy standard.
Under US law, parody requires that it be used to comment on the original.
Under US law, "comment" does not mean "make an explicit statement" just like "freedom of speech" does not mean "freedom to speak". The fact that a song is even being parodied is a comment regarding its popularity, and most of his songs do subtly (and gently) mock the original style by doing crazy things with it. That is sufficient commentary.
Of course, you can also elect to pay for it yourself. But, if you have ever seen what even basic healthcare costs in the U.S., you will realize this is impractical for anyone who isn't Bill Gates. A single emergency room visit could easily bankrupt even a moderately well-off individual. And don't even THINK about having surgery unless you've got a mansion to mortgage.
People seem to forget that YOU CAN BUY YOUR OWN INSURANCE. You don't need an employer or the government to supply it to you. Kaiser Permanente's most expensive plan for me (age 19 in generally-good health) would cost $250/mo which has a $25 co-pay for visits, $100 co-pay for emergency room, $10 medications and everything is covered with no deductibles. That's their most expensive plan, and it's fairly affordable if you have a decent job and sure beats living with an ailment, bad free clinic care, or paying out of pocket for medical assistance. I think the cheapest plan is less than $100/mo, but deductible-based. There are options for everybody.
Why does everybody act like you can't get your own health insurance?
And in Europe IE does not have the majority marketshare, they still do have the biggest share though.
Well, that was misuse of my native language. IE doesn't have the majority market share anywhere, but they do have the dominant one. Google doesn't make a whole lot of money on Chrome, though. I don't have statistics and research in front of me, but I presume that the majority of Chrome users came from Firefox or another alternate browser (the vast majority of which have Google as the default search engine and even homepage anyway). Google has spent a lot more money developing Chrome than they have made directly from it.
Google's business is in browser applications. That means that no matter how good their applications are, they're still constrained by the limitations of the browsers. A few years ago, Google started pulling way ahead of the curve as far as how well Javascript engines could run the new apps they were trying to develop, so they needed to kick the industry in the ass a little bit, and Chrome did that. By building a browser that was over twice as fast as any other on the market, they really scared the other competitors into focusing on speed and less on feature bloat like what was happening at the time. Now everybody is mostly neck and neck. Chrome isn't significantly faster than anybody else, but damnit if Google isn't trying, because the faster Chrome gets, the faster everybody else has to get to compete. In the end, Google doesn't care what browser you use when you're using their applications, but your browser has to be able to handle the ever-increasing toll these applications take on its engines. Google has succeeded in their primary goal. Everything else is just frosting.
Not in the browser market, no. They have enough market share that they're able to influence the market and keep the innovations and advancements flowing, and that's all that matters to them.
January in Canada is fairly different depending which side of the country you're on.
Seasons are opposite across the equator, sir. When it's Winter on one side of Canada, it's Winter on the other. The only difference is that Southern Canada might be i-cant-feel-my-face cold while Northern Canada is holy-shit-i-think-my-balls-just-froze-off cold.
MS's beatdown of little-guy Netscape doesn't really say anything about behemoth Google's chances of success, and there's room for Mozilla (and anyone else) to survive with some coat-tail surfing.
Except Google isn't gunning for market share, and I believe they're still one of the larger sources of direct funding for the Mozilla Foundation. Google just wants advancement. Before Chrome came along, every browser's javascript engine was absolute shit. Slow and crappy and slow and slow. V8 kickstarted everybody's interest in Javascript (as Javascript is what really makes Google run) and now everybody is much faster than the first release of Chrome, which gives Google plenty of room to make bigger, better browser applications. They didn't want to beat everybody, they just wanted to scare everybody and say "Look, speed is important to people. Do you see how fast our market share is growing? You had better pick up the pace or you will become irrelevant as quickly as our new browser renders Google Maps Satellite View."
It worked.
And today Microsoft still holds the majority of the browser market share, but most of that comes from enterprise and people who either prefer IE (those people DO exist, believe it or not) or people who just don't care to deviate from the default (which is also just fine).
I have yet to see any substantial evidence pointing towards the notion that global warming is anthropogenic. The main point that was discussed has always been the "greenhouse effect" (which was never actually studied... more theorized about), but that has been firmly disproven by the discovery that the average global temperature at any given time is proportional to the amount of radiation emitted by the planet and the amount of radiation emitted by the sun at the same time. The greenhouse effect theory states that as the CO2 concentration increases, the atmosphere reflects radiation back down upon the surface, which means that the amount of radiation escaping the atmosphere should not be proportional to the amount of radiation being emitted by the sun. This study was undertaken over a 20-year period (in order to actually gather enough data that it would actually be useful rather than racing premature and insignificant information to the polls) before the results were published.
Luckily for the global warming leaders, the world was already convinced that we're causing it and you know how the general public refuses to acknowledge data contrary to their point of view. Since the world is already convinced, Al Gore and friends didn't have to do much to quash these little-publicized scientific works from the public eye.
Then there is the presence of much evidence pointing to the fact that global warming "scientists" have intentionally skewed data for political means. I think one such article ran on Slashdot not so long ago when somebody released emails between renowned global warming researchers conspiring to falsify data. They run computer models and algorithms that are designed to spit out graphs of a predetermined shape and predictions of a predetermined result regardless of the data that is input. They display graphs in such a way that the contrary data is hidden (Medieval warming period, anybody?).
The public is easily confused by numbers and data, so all they do is read the headlines and look at the pictures. So all you have to do to reinforce the public's conviction that is already firmly in your favor is to generate a headline and pictures that agree with you knowing that the public won't look at the data inside. This is also how the anti-smoking trend started. The EPA published a document in 1992 titled "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders" which stated that approximately 3000 nonsmokers die every year as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke, which sent everybody flying to ban smoking everywhere. That study was completely lambasted by the supreme court in 1998 due to cherry-picking data and ignoring anything that didn't support a predetermined conclusion. The World Health Organization also announced a study with a press release titled "Passive Smoking Does Cause Lung Cancer, Do Not Let Them Fool You" when the study they were talking about effectively stated the exact opposite: No association between childhood exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer risk, and that the increased risk of cancer in those with combined exposure to spousal and workplace ETS were not statistically significant.
Both studies are still used as the main references with regard to getting tobacco smoke banned, even though one was proven in court to be a boldfaced lie and the other one showed no statistically-significant evidence that secondhand smoke harms you. Echo chamber.
(I don't smoke. I don't like smoke. I don't like it when people smoke around me. But I also don't like Lady Gaga (who is arguably more dangerous than ETS because her music creates a nearly-irresistible desire to jam a fork into my testicles), and you don't see me trying to get her banned from public places.)
Whose motives would I question more, an academic doing it for a 6-figure grant, or a company with 11-figure quarterly profits?
A multi-billion-dollar industry has been built around the public's fear of death, destruction, and doom at the hands of anthropogenic global warming. From things that aren't so bad like hybrid and electric vehicles to absolute scams like wind energy, and the best thing about it (to those in these industries) is that much of their profitability comes directly from the government in the form of subsidies and tax breaks. I'm not saying reducing pollution and our dependence upon foreign energy is a bad thing (I drive a hybrid) but I'm basically being forced to pay for other people's cars because congress and the majority of voters have been scammed by the green movement and global warming.
And no, one cannot point to a lot of measurements and data that suggest anthropogenic origins. The measurements and data state that Earth is currently in a warming trend over the last hundred years or so, and a graph that has not been "tweaked" to favor a particular side of the argument shows a clear cycle over the last few thousand. Remember in the 70's when people were afraid that smog was blocking the sun and sending us into an ice age because the average surface temperature was dropping for a few years? This is the same thing but the other direction. Echo chamber.
In political terms it's called the "echo chamber" where something repeated often enough, loudly enough, and with dissent ridiculed enough, it begins to take on the appearance of truth, regardless of actual merit.
Sounds like modern radical environmentalism and the notion that global warming is anthropogenic.
But in all seriousness, I'm not sure how well that explanation works for a currency. Commodities are produced, sold, bought, and then used (read: destroyed), thereby creating demand for more. A currency is never destroyed, only produced, and only traded for commodities. Wouldn't that mean that everybody who uses a given currency is a speculator in that currency market?
I guess it is a sufficient enough explanation as to why BitCoin has no value, though inaccurate.
Isn't that true for most currencies? You know, being off the gold standard and all that. I'm not saying it's a good thing - I just note it.
There may be no gold standard backing the dollar, but there's still a little ditty written on every US Treasury note in existence (as far as I'm aware) that no other currency can claim: "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE". All debts belonging to a creditor in the United States can be paid in US Dollars today, tomorrow, and forevermore. And that's not just loans, it's your cable bill, housekeeper, fancy dinner at Olive Garden, and your neighborhood prostitute. Any time somebody renders goods or services to you before you pay them is a debt. Direct transactions, however, such as simply purchasing something from a store, are not required to accept USD.
Sorry If you live more than 50 miles from work then why are you travelling by car at all...?
Unless you are out in the sticks any other means of transport has to be cheaper, even moving closer to work would save you a fortune ?
Unfortunately, not around here. I work in San Francisco and live in the North Bay. The bus would cost over $20/day and I would have to leave an hour and a half earlier than by car. There is no train up here. The ferry wouldn't get me where I need to go. And if you want to move, the closer you get to San Francisco the more ridiculously expensive it is to live.
THAT'S IT? For a car that costs over $30,000? I would not be able to drive to work and back on that. No wonder the lady at work that just got a Leaf needed to install a charging station there.
Ever asked your boss to cut back your salary when cost of living goes down?
When has the cost of living ever gone down? We're in a downswing. There was that whole Great Depression thing 80 years ago. But cost of living has always and will always trend upwards. And when it goes down, it's because the entire economy is down and your employer will voluntarily cut your hours, pay, and benefits without you even having to ask.
And explain what you mean by "grossly inflated prices". Do you mean that it doesn't actually cost as much as it actually does to make food for people? If you're talking about this retarded Organic craze, then you'd be right, but the good old non-organic apples down at your local big chain supermarket are priced as low as they possibly can.
Slashdot Mirror
What percentage of the degree is taken up with Gen-Ed? If it's just 1 or 2 courses, then maybe it's not that bad.
About half. A lot of people go to a community college for two years to knock out their general ed requirements before they transfer the credits to a university to pay the big bucks for the interesting and useful classes while they finish off the four year degree. It really sucks.
A really smart company would let you request a call from their website though.
Amazon does that, and it's awesome. If you're already signed in, you can give them a specific order or item you're calling about or whatever and the agent will already have all your information and all the information of whatever you're calling about in front of them and you don't have to deal with trying to tell them everything over the phone. Saves them time and hassle, saves you time and hassle. It's beautiful.
Well we're already well on the way to cheap power supplies, at least on handhelds. Most smartphones these days are dropping their proprietary bullshit for Micro USB. The problem with laptops for now is that they don't all necessarily have the same power requirements. Modern smartphones are designed to charge on USB, which already has an energy standard.
Yes, you are definitely 19.
What, pray tell, is your point?
Under US law, parody requires that it be used to comment on the original.
Under US law, "comment" does not mean "make an explicit statement" just like "freedom of speech" does not mean "freedom to speak". The fact that a song is even being parodied is a comment regarding its popularity, and most of his songs do subtly (and gently) mock the original style by doing crazy things with it. That is sufficient commentary.
The key issue is, he wants to stay in jail, so he'll plead not guilty, forcing them to schedule him for trial.
OR the DA could just refuse to prosecute him, and set him free.
Of course, you can also elect to pay for it yourself. But, if you have ever seen what even basic healthcare costs in the U.S., you will realize this is impractical for anyone who isn't Bill Gates. A single emergency room visit could easily bankrupt even a moderately well-off individual. And don't even THINK about having surgery unless you've got a mansion to mortgage.
People seem to forget that YOU CAN BUY YOUR OWN INSURANCE. You don't need an employer or the government to supply it to you. Kaiser Permanente's most expensive plan for me (age 19 in generally-good health) would cost $250/mo which has a $25 co-pay for visits, $100 co-pay for emergency room, $10 medications and everything is covered with no deductibles. That's their most expensive plan, and it's fairly affordable if you have a decent job and sure beats living with an ailment, bad free clinic care, or paying out of pocket for medical assistance. I think the cheapest plan is less than $100/mo, but deductible-based. There are options for everybody.
Why does everybody act like you can't get your own health insurance?
And in Europe IE does not have the majority marketshare, they still do have the biggest share though.
Well, that was misuse of my native language. IE doesn't have the majority market share anywhere, but they do have the dominant one. Google doesn't make a whole lot of money on Chrome, though. I don't have statistics and research in front of me, but I presume that the majority of Chrome users came from Firefox or another alternate browser (the vast majority of which have Google as the default search engine and even homepage anyway). Google has spent a lot more money developing Chrome than they have made directly from it.
Google's business is in browser applications. That means that no matter how good their applications are, they're still constrained by the limitations of the browsers. A few years ago, Google started pulling way ahead of the curve as far as how well Javascript engines could run the new apps they were trying to develop, so they needed to kick the industry in the ass a little bit, and Chrome did that. By building a browser that was over twice as fast as any other on the market, they really scared the other competitors into focusing on speed and less on feature bloat like what was happening at the time. Now everybody is mostly neck and neck. Chrome isn't significantly faster than anybody else, but damnit if Google isn't trying, because the faster Chrome gets, the faster everybody else has to get to compete. In the end, Google doesn't care what browser you use when you're using their applications, but your browser has to be able to handle the ever-increasing toll these applications take on its engines. Google has succeeded in their primary goal. Everything else is just frosting.
Not in the browser market, no. They have enough market share that they're able to influence the market and keep the innovations and advancements flowing, and that's all that matters to them.
January in Canada is fairly different depending which side of the country you're on.
Seasons are opposite across the equator, sir. When it's Winter on one side of Canada, it's Winter on the other. The only difference is that Southern Canada might be i-cant-feel-my-face cold while Northern Canada is holy-shit-i-think-my-balls-just-froze-off cold.
MS's beatdown of little-guy Netscape doesn't really say anything about behemoth Google's chances of success, and there's room for Mozilla (and anyone else) to survive with some coat-tail surfing.
Except Google isn't gunning for market share, and I believe they're still one of the larger sources of direct funding for the Mozilla Foundation. Google just wants advancement. Before Chrome came along, every browser's javascript engine was absolute shit. Slow and crappy and slow and slow. V8 kickstarted everybody's interest in Javascript (as Javascript is what really makes Google run) and now everybody is much faster than the first release of Chrome, which gives Google plenty of room to make bigger, better browser applications. They didn't want to beat everybody, they just wanted to scare everybody and say "Look, speed is important to people. Do you see how fast our market share is growing? You had better pick up the pace or you will become irrelevant as quickly as our new browser renders Google Maps Satellite View."
It worked.
And today Microsoft still holds the majority of the browser market share, but most of that comes from enterprise and people who either prefer IE (those people DO exist, believe it or not) or people who just don't care to deviate from the default (which is also just fine).
I think I just got the high score in Who Can Be The Most Off Topic While Still Being On Topic.
I have yet to see any substantial evidence pointing towards the notion that global warming is anthropogenic. The main point that was discussed has always been the "greenhouse effect" (which was never actually studied... more theorized about), but that has been firmly disproven by the discovery that the average global temperature at any given time is proportional to the amount of radiation emitted by the planet and the amount of radiation emitted by the sun at the same time. The greenhouse effect theory states that as the CO2 concentration increases, the atmosphere reflects radiation back down upon the surface, which means that the amount of radiation escaping the atmosphere should not be proportional to the amount of radiation being emitted by the sun. This study was undertaken over a 20-year period (in order to actually gather enough data that it would actually be useful rather than racing premature and insignificant information to the polls) before the results were published.
Luckily for the global warming leaders, the world was already convinced that we're causing it and you know how the general public refuses to acknowledge data contrary to their point of view. Since the world is already convinced, Al Gore and friends didn't have to do much to quash these little-publicized scientific works from the public eye.
Then there is the presence of much evidence pointing to the fact that global warming "scientists" have intentionally skewed data for political means. I think one such article ran on Slashdot not so long ago when somebody released emails between renowned global warming researchers conspiring to falsify data. They run computer models and algorithms that are designed to spit out graphs of a predetermined shape and predictions of a predetermined result regardless of the data that is input. They display graphs in such a way that the contrary data is hidden (Medieval warming period, anybody?).
The public is easily confused by numbers and data, so all they do is read the headlines and look at the pictures. So all you have to do to reinforce the public's conviction that is already firmly in your favor is to generate a headline and pictures that agree with you knowing that the public won't look at the data inside. This is also how the anti-smoking trend started. The EPA published a document in 1992 titled "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders" which stated that approximately 3000 nonsmokers die every year as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke, which sent everybody flying to ban smoking everywhere. That study was completely lambasted by the supreme court in 1998 due to cherry-picking data and ignoring anything that didn't support a predetermined conclusion. The World Health Organization also announced a study with a press release titled "Passive Smoking Does Cause Lung Cancer, Do Not Let Them Fool You" when the study they were talking about effectively stated the exact opposite: No association between childhood exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer risk, and that the increased risk of cancer in those with combined exposure to spousal and workplace ETS were not statistically significant.
Both studies are still used as the main references with regard to getting tobacco smoke banned, even though one was proven in court to be a boldfaced lie and the other one showed no statistically-significant evidence that secondhand smoke harms you. Echo chamber.
(I don't smoke. I don't like smoke. I don't like it when people smoke around me. But I also don't like Lady Gaga (who is arguably more dangerous than ETS because her music creates a nearly-irresistible desire to jam a fork into my testicles), and you don't see me trying to get her banned from public places.)
Whose motives would I question more, an academic doing it for a 6-figure grant, or a company with 11-figure quarterly profits?
A multi-billion-dollar industry has been built around the public's fear of death, destruction, and doom at the hands of anthropogenic global warming. From things that aren't so bad like hybrid and electric vehicles to absolute scams like wind energy, and the best thing about it (to those in these industries) is that much of their profitability comes directly from the government in the form of subsidies and tax breaks. I'm not saying reducing pollution and our dependence upon foreign energy is a bad thing (I drive a hybrid) but I'm basically being forced to pay for other people's cars because congress and the majority of voters have been scammed by the green movement and global warming.
And no, one cannot point to a lot of measurements and data that suggest anthropogenic origins. The measurements and data state that Earth is currently in a warming trend over the last hundred years or so, and a graph that has not been "tweaked" to favor a particular side of the argument shows a clear cycle over the last few thousand. Remember in the 70's when people were afraid that smog was blocking the sun and sending us into an ice age because the average surface temperature was dropping for a few years? This is the same thing but the other direction. Echo chamber.
In political terms it's called the "echo chamber" where something repeated often enough, loudly enough, and with dissent ridiculed enough, it begins to take on the appearance of truth, regardless of actual merit.
Sounds like modern radical environmentalism and the notion that global warming is anthropogenic.
increasingly small
lol
But in all seriousness, I'm not sure how well that explanation works for a currency. Commodities are produced, sold, bought, and then used (read: destroyed), thereby creating demand for more. A currency is never destroyed, only produced, and only traded for commodities. Wouldn't that mean that everybody who uses a given currency is a speculator in that currency market?
I guess it is a sufficient enough explanation as to why BitCoin has no value, though inaccurate.
Bitcoins do not have intrinsic value
Isn't that true for most currencies? You know, being off the gold standard and all that. I'm not saying it's a good thing - I just note it.
There may be no gold standard backing the dollar, but there's still a little ditty written on every US Treasury note in existence (as far as I'm aware) that no other currency can claim: "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE". All debts belonging to a creditor in the United States can be paid in US Dollars today, tomorrow, and forevermore. And that's not just loans, it's your cable bill, housekeeper, fancy dinner at Olive Garden, and your neighborhood prostitute. Any time somebody renders goods or services to you before you pay them is a debt. Direct transactions, however, such as simply purchasing something from a store, are not required to accept USD.
According to their Twitter, they were taking requests for DDoS, and targets included Minecraft, Escapist, EVE, and League of Legends.
The construction industry does that to you. You have to go where there's work. It doesn't come to you, unfortunately.
Sorry If you live more than 50 miles from work then why are you travelling by car at all ...?
Unless you are out in the sticks any other means of transport has to be cheaper, even moving closer to work would save you a fortune ?
Unfortunately, not around here. I work in San Francisco and live in the North Bay. The bus would cost over $20/day and I would have to leave an hour and a half earlier than by car. There is no train up here. The ferry wouldn't get me where I need to go. And if you want to move, the closer you get to San Francisco the more ridiculously expensive it is to live.
So, how's that ~4 gallon commute working out for you? Economically and environmentally sustainable, is it?
Absolutely, or I wouldn't be doing it.
range of 100 miles per charge
THAT'S IT? For a car that costs over $30,000? I would not be able to drive to work and back on that. No wonder the lady at work that just got a Leaf needed to install a charging station there.
Yes, that's what the poster that you quoted said in the sentence immediately after the one you quoted.
lol the guy must have a really short attention span.
Ever asked your boss to cut back your salary when cost of living goes down?
When has the cost of living ever gone down? We're in a downswing. There was that whole Great Depression thing 80 years ago. But cost of living has always and will always trend upwards. And when it goes down, it's because the entire economy is down and your employer will voluntarily cut your hours, pay, and benefits without you even having to ask.
And explain what you mean by "grossly inflated prices". Do you mean that it doesn't actually cost as much as it actually does to make food for people? If you're talking about this retarded Organic craze, then you'd be right, but the good old non-organic apples down at your local big chain supermarket are priced as low as they possibly can.
People buying nooks, over their kindle because then they can use B&Ns service and the Kindle service as well.
Amazon isn't making money by selling Kindles. Where did you get that preposterous hypothesis?