This would almost be an acceptable justification, if not for one detail: They previously promised more then they are now able to deliver. This is bordering on false advertising, made legal only by a line of small print that allows them to change the contract any time they wish. If they don't have the ability to deliver larger amounts of data, they shouldn't have promised customers they would
Which is why they always use the weasel words "up to" (as in, "speeds up to 30 kiloquads per lunar cycle"). That lets them put the biggest number they figure they can get away with, without *actually* committing to providing those speeds.
And caps don't actually solve bandwidth problems - it just means you'll get better speed at the end of the month (when everyone else is out of data). If you want to manage your networks, you slow the downloads down.
Reminds me of a set of photos I saw from an old hurricane.
Picture one was of a fairly normal three-floor apartment complex. Apparently the residents decided to throw a "hurricane party". Stocked up on food and water (and booze and munchies), moved everything up to the third floor, and hunkered down to wait out the storm.
Picture two was of the concrete pad that the apartment complex used to be on - if not for the building footprint, you'd never have known there was a building there in the first place.
$50m earning interest will still be a loss once paid. Unless they found a ridiculously awesome interest rate, or left it sitting for long enough to more than double. I don't see evidence of either, so overall it would be a loss.
Not really - they had already set aside that $50 million, "just in case". (And it turns out that they overbudgeted by 2.5 mil, so someone's getting a bonus for being under budget this year!). The difference is that rather than actually *pay* that money, they stuck it in the bank and collected interest. All that interest is profit for them (i.e. money they otherwise wouldn't have earned).
What bothers me about it is that there appears to be no punitive damages at all. It's like not putting payments down on your house but stashing the money aside, and when they finally come track you down, handing over the stash and saying "no harm no foul, right?"
"Cure all diseases related to aging" implies that you know how to cure all of those diseases. Simply put, we don't.
But putting someone on another planet? Just a matter of sending up enough stuff to create a survivable shelter and enough extra stuff to keep that stuff in good repair. The how-to is all but trivial. It's getting the money to do it that's hard.
And oddly, the best for NASA *is* to have a group of actual, live humans out there on Mars, needing us to send additional supplies. (Folks seem to assume that we're just going to throw Bob in a capsule, fire him over there, and then forget about him - I would assume that we'll be sending care packages from time to time.) It's a hell of a lot harder to cut funding for space travel when you have Bob on Mars pointing out that it's a death sentence for him...
I think "suicide mission" is entirely the wrong term to use here. If the life expectancy of this trip is measured in years, then it's colonization. (Might end up being a *failed* colony, but it's a colony none-the-less.)
Is how a father of three could volunteer to depart on what would most likely be a suicide mission. Exploration and the battle against entropy and all that is all good and well, but if one is a father, one has certain responsibilities that are paramount about anything else.
My assumption was that he's the father of three grown children. At that point, it's not much different than moving to Florida or something.
It does raise the question of whether he's bringing the missus along...
The Conservatives in the UK, and to a more recent extent New Labour, and the Liberal Democrat main economist Vince Cable, have been chipping away at the NHS for a long time
Sure, that's what these people do. But have you heard one of them stand up and say "We need to end universal health care"?
No, but that's because it would be political suicide.
What they do (and they're doing here in Canada) is chipping away. Oh, it's too expensive to do this, why should we cover that, you don't mind waiting a few more hours in emergency, do you?
The goal isn't for them to declare universal health care is at an end. The goal is to drive the public to *want* it dead (because enough have given up and started paying for it separately).
That is an awesome website. Awesome on the "watching a train hit a bus full of orphans and their newly adopted puppies" horrible sort of way, but awesome none the less.
That is officially my new "go to" site for proving the conservative POV.
And all of those are fine in my mind - because none of them are trying to pass themselves off as "the original". And when you sit down in English to study Shakespeare, you don't get to watch West Side Story and call that your paper on Romeo & Juliet.
If they want to make a "Huck Finn" where Sarah Palin and her friend Tea Party encounter treacherous Democrats along the campaign trail, have at it. I only expect them to have enough integrity to name it something different.
I dont see any uproar on internet in europe, middle east or asia over this. not to mention africa and south america. not even canada.
At least in Canada, it'll be because Huck Finn isn't in the school curriculum. I suspect the same will be true elsewhere - we'll never see the "clean" version, because we don't freak out about the original.
But, what if you look at it, not as censorship, but as translation.
Obvious answer: if we're revamping Finn for "modern audiences", then why aren't we doing the same for Shakespeare (where kids are told that you have to study it in the original text or it loses meaning). You can't have it both ways.
Seriously, it's a great idea, except for the part where we all have to agree on what the "good" view of history is: Did England just gracefully give America it's independence, for instance? The North and South settled their differences over a nice cup of coffee and a game of checkers?
Why don't you give your kids the live vaccine if it is so safe?
Because the dead vaccine is safer (but more expensive). But something is still better than nothing.
You know when your doctor says "make sure you finish taking all the antibiotics, even if you're feeling better"? That's because stopping mid-way through can make you sicker. And that's what all those religious leaders did - intentionally made their followers sick to make a political point.
To me, this makes an argument for free choice - whether it be for vaccinations, or any other topic on which so many people disagree.
The problem is that your choice puts the rest of us at risk. So it's really in the same category as requiring your car to be in good working order - we don't make you do it to protect yourself, we make you do it to protect the rest of us from your negligence.
It's easy for even the most balanced parents to go a bit unhinged under the mountain of screaming noise that says "BUT WHAT IF IT HAPPENED?!?!? HOW WOULD YOU EVER LIVE WITH YOURSELF?!??!?"
We're trying hard to raise our kid with a solid sense of self-preservation and street-smarts, but it's a constant fight with relatives, friends, and anyone else who buys into the "YOU MUST PROTECT YOUR CHILD FROM EVERYTHING" mantra. (I'm trying to figure out how the world is less safe now that your kid can have a cell phone and be reachable at any moment - when I grew up you were expected to be completely unreachable for hours at a time. Just be back inside before the street lights turned on...)
*** Thirded. I'd also like a stronger ability to choose what I'm sending along (do you just need to know that I'm the same user who was here last time, or do you really need my real name / address / credit card info)?
I nearly fell out of my chair the other day when Facebook popped up a "your account is low security" warning, which then asks you to give them even more personal information... (Yes, I get the theory, but I can't be the only person who assumes that any additional information I give them - to make my data more secure - will promptly be used to mine my life even more than it is now.)
What if searches for devious, undetectable methods of murder were in everyone's history?
If I'm not mistaken, you're condoning the murder of his wife?
I read it as condemning the equation of "reading about something" with "intent". It's the same reason why librarians don't want to release lending histories - you should be able to read things without being judged for it. (I'm lucky - my library removes my history by default.)
That said, it sounds like they had this guy without this - it was just used to fill in some blanks for the jurors.
I'm always amused by the "Canadians don't own guns" idea. You get into rural Canada, and there are a lot of guns. The only differences seem to be that (a) they're more rifles and other long-guns instead of pistols, and (b) we don't feel the need to shoot our neighbors with them.
Slashdot Mirror
This would almost be an acceptable justification, if not for one detail: They previously promised more then they are now able to deliver. This is bordering on false advertising, made legal only by a line of small print that allows them to change the contract any time they wish. If they don't have the ability to deliver larger amounts of data, they shouldn't have promised customers they would
Which is why they always use the weasel words "up to" (as in, "speeds up to 30 kiloquads per lunar cycle"). That lets them put the biggest number they figure they can get away with, without *actually* committing to providing those speeds.
And caps don't actually solve bandwidth problems - it just means you'll get better speed at the end of the month (when everyone else is out of data). If you want to manage your networks, you slow the downloads down.
Reminds me of a set of photos I saw from an old hurricane.
Picture one was of a fairly normal three-floor apartment complex. Apparently the residents decided to throw a "hurricane party". Stocked up on food and water (and booze and munchies), moved everything up to the third floor, and hunkered down to wait out the storm.
Picture two was of the concrete pad that the apartment complex used to be on - if not for the building footprint, you'd never have known there was a building there in the first place.
$50m earning interest will still be a loss once paid. Unless they found a ridiculously awesome interest rate, or left it sitting for long enough to more than double. I don't see evidence of either, so overall it would be a loss.
Not really - they had already set aside that $50 million, "just in case". (And it turns out that they overbudgeted by 2.5 mil, so someone's getting a bonus for being under budget this year!). The difference is that rather than actually *pay* that money, they stuck it in the bank and collected interest. All that interest is profit for them (i.e. money they otherwise wouldn't have earned).
What bothers me about it is that there appears to be no punitive damages at all. It's like not putting payments down on your house but stashing the money aside, and when they finally come track you down, handing over the stash and saying "no harm no foul, right?"
Depends - is it organic?
On the contrary, we have considered what sort of life each child will have. And what the impact to the planet is.
Then you have my respect and admiration. (Any *planned* parenthood is a good parenthood in my books.)
(commander/pilot)Height must be 5 ft 4 in to 6 ft 4 in (1.63 to 1.93 m).
(mission specialist)*Applicant's height must be 5 ft 2 in to 6 ft 4 in (1.57 to 1.93 m).
I'll bite - why do the pilots have to be two inches taller than the mission specialist? Pedals too far away or something? :)
Actually, I do.
"Cure all diseases related to aging" implies that you know how to cure all of those diseases. Simply put, we don't.
But putting someone on another planet? Just a matter of sending up enough stuff to create a survivable shelter and enough extra stuff to keep that stuff in good repair. The how-to is all but trivial. It's getting the money to do it that's hard.
And oddly, the best for NASA *is* to have a group of actual, live humans out there on Mars, needing us to send additional supplies. (Folks seem to assume that we're just going to throw Bob in a capsule, fire him over there, and then forget about him - I would assume that we'll be sending care packages from time to time.) It's a hell of a lot harder to cut funding for space travel when you have Bob on Mars pointing out that it's a death sentence for him...
I think "suicide mission" is entirely the wrong term to use here. If the life expectancy of this trip is measured in years, then it's colonization. (Might end up being a *failed* colony, but it's a colony none-the-less.)
So... you're planning to inseminate every one of your sperm with all of her eggs, or are you playing favorites?
Is how a father of three could volunteer to depart on what would most likely be a suicide mission. Exploration and the battle against entropy and all that is all good and well, but if one is a father, one has certain responsibilities that are paramount about anything else.
My assumption was that he's the father of three grown children. At that point, it's not much different than moving to Florida or something.
It does raise the question of whether he's bringing the missus along...
Sure, that's what these people do. But have you heard one of them stand up and say "We need to end universal health care"?
No, but that's because it would be political suicide.
What they do (and they're doing here in Canada) is chipping away. Oh, it's too expensive to do this, why should we cover that, you don't mind waiting a few more hours in emergency, do you?
The goal isn't for them to declare universal health care is at an end. The goal is to drive the public to *want* it dead (because enough have given up and started paying for it separately).
That is an awesome website. Awesome on the "watching a train hit a bus full of orphans and their newly adopted puppies" horrible sort of way, but awesome none the less. That is officially my new "go to" site for proving the conservative POV.
And all of those are fine in my mind - because none of them are trying to pass themselves off as "the original". And when you sit down in English to study Shakespeare, you don't get to watch West Side Story and call that your paper on Romeo & Juliet.
If they want to make a "Huck Finn" where Sarah Palin and her friend Tea Party encounter treacherous Democrats along the campaign trail, have at it. I only expect them to have enough integrity to name it something different.
I dont see any uproar on internet in europe, middle east or asia over this. not to mention africa and south america. not even canada.
At least in Canada, it'll be because Huck Finn isn't in the school curriculum. I suspect the same will be true elsewhere - we'll never see the "clean" version, because we don't freak out about the original.
I would die laughing if someone arranged a typo in that replacement to make Jim a "Slav" ;)
But, what if you look at it, not as censorship, but as translation.
Obvious answer: if we're revamping Finn for "modern audiences", then why aren't we doing the same for Shakespeare (where kids are told that you have to study it in the original text or it loses meaning). You can't have it both ways.
Sounds doubleplusgood to me!
Seriously, it's a great idea, except for the part where we all have to agree on what the "good" view of history is: Did England just gracefully give America it's independence, for instance? The North and South settled their differences over a nice cup of coffee and a game of checkers?
Why don't you give your kids the live vaccine if it is so safe?
Because the dead vaccine is safer (but more expensive). But something is still better than nothing.
You know when your doctor says "make sure you finish taking all the antibiotics, even if you're feeling better"? That's because stopping mid-way through can make you sicker. And that's what all those religious leaders did - intentionally made their followers sick to make a political point.
To me, this makes an argument for free choice - whether it be for vaccinations, or any other topic on which so many people disagree.
The problem is that your choice puts the rest of us at risk. So it's really in the same category as requiring your car to be in good working order - we don't make you do it to protect yourself, we make you do it to protect the rest of us from your negligence.
It's easy for even the most balanced parents to go a bit unhinged under the mountain of screaming noise that says "BUT WHAT IF IT HAPPENED?!?!? HOW WOULD YOU EVER LIVE WITH YOURSELF?!??!?"
We're trying hard to raise our kid with a solid sense of self-preservation and street-smarts, but it's a constant fight with relatives, friends, and anyone else who buys into the "YOU MUST PROTECT YOUR CHILD FROM EVERYTHING" mantra. (I'm trying to figure out how the world is less safe now that your kid can have a cell phone and be reachable at any moment - when I grew up you were expected to be completely unreachable for hours at a time. Just be back inside before the street lights turned on...)
*** Thirded. I'd also like a stronger ability to choose what I'm sending along (do you just need to know that I'm the same user who was here last time, or do you really need my real name / address / credit card info)?
I nearly fell out of my chair the other day when Facebook popped up a "your account is low security" warning, which then asks you to give them even more personal information... (Yes, I get the theory, but I can't be the only person who assumes that any additional information I give them - to make my data more secure - will promptly be used to mine my life even more than it is now.)
What if searches for devious, undetectable methods of murder were in everyone's history?
If I'm not mistaken, you're condoning the murder of his wife?
I read it as condemning the equation of "reading about something" with "intent". It's the same reason why librarians don't want to release lending histories - you should be able to read things without being judged for it. (I'm lucky - my library removes my history by default.)
That said, it sounds like they had this guy without this - it was just used to fill in some blanks for the jurors.
When I die, I think I want a wi-fi point and one of those low-power servers running a custom Eliza. Messing with people for eternity...
I've never even owned a gun.
What are you, Canadian?
LK
I'm always amused by the "Canadians don't own guns" idea. You get into rural Canada, and there are a lot of guns. The only differences seem to be that (a) they're more rifles and other long-guns instead of pistols, and (b) we don't feel the need to shoot our neighbors with them.
Actually it's THE Moon and THE Space Station.
No, it's "a" - there are multiple Moons (we're actually fairly poor in the moon lottery), and there have been past Space Stations.