Aaaah and now er have slashdot's favourite capitalista [hutman.net]. If the government taxes the rich so hard then how come Warren Buffet's secretary pays a higher rate of tax than Warren Buffet [go.com]?
Are you people still beating that drum? It is probably the difference between tax on ordinary income and tax on capital gains. I am not rich, but I like a low capital gains tax. First, because that money has - depending on the investment vehicle - already been taxed at the ordinary income rate. And, second, because whether I have $100K or $100M in the bank I pay the same 15%.
The problem I see with Islamic theocracies - compared to the US constitution saying that we are endowed with unalienable rights by our creator - is that they get their laws from their god, not their rights. The are therefore free to trample on the rights of the individual in the name of their god. In the US, we are free to act like fools in the name of our god.
Rep. Broun needs to learn than belief in god and even Christianity does not mean the big bang or evolution are wrong. One cannot snap their fingers and make a cake; the ingredients must be mixed together and have heat applied. Why should god be able to circumvent the rules just because his cake is the universe?
Shouldn't those be among the best designed, safest, most reliable and secure of devices?
I'm surprised they would allow remote access without a direct connection. It's vulnerable enough in that it relies on electronic timing and can be affected by external electromagnetic forces; but, to make it accessible via wireless/RF/whatever just seems like a bad idea through and though.
I highly doubt you or anyone can conceive, design and build a bearing polishing machine in one day, but I digress. And I understand the effort it takes to "invent" ideas on the web (Amazon "one click," this Google account thing, etc.). I just don't see it as the same as building a physical machine operating in the physical world, and that is the distinction with which I am trying to come to terms. The bar of triviality and obviousness needs to be set in a far different place in software compared to the physical realm.
I'm still foggy on why a patent can be issues for a user interface, some middleware and a relational database. I just don't see that the same level of protection is needed without the same kind of initial effort as, say, developing a machine to implement a ball bearing polishing technique. I can sit down and in a day bang out the code to do what Google patented.
I am a huge fan of the old car wax commercial (DD-27?) where the guy says, "I'm going to pour hydrochloric acid on this car...But wait, I'm first going to pour ammonia on it [audience gasp at 2 toxic chemicals being poured on the shiny car surface!]" Uh, Hi, high school chemistry calling...HCl + NH3 = your paint job is going to be fine.
The "version" of this Bilderberg theory I hear is that Bush is dumb as dirt
I think there's enough video evidence from him speaking to prove that point.
Bush said an incredible amount of Really Stupid Things. I find it hard to believe anybody still believes he's anything but a drooling chimp.
Just curious, but when Obama said he had visited 57 states, did you see that as being stupid? How about the unbelievably numerous times he stammers in his non-teleprompter speeches, e.g., I-I-I-I-I-I don't- wha-wha-wha-what I mean; you see, the-the-the..., and so on? Or is he still The Great Orator? Genius, voice of a generation? And Haliburton is evil, but what about Obama's Goldman-Sachs chums in the administration?
We spend so much time complaining, yet it is us - the people, the voters - who opted to sit around and watch television and let politicians warp the constitution to serve their need for power. The right and the left serve the same master. But it isn't the people.
How is this the same? This bill is forcing retailers to accept your old equipment for recycling. As in, you have an old laptop that works or doesn't work, you want to throw it out. Now you can take it to the retailer and deposit it there.
Environment fee is not the same thing, though both apples and oranges are fruit.
Correct. And since they can't legally charge to accept your old equipment they add a fee on to the new equipment they sell. Sounds like apples to apples (or PCs to PCs) to me.
Or the liability when we all suffocate while waiting in the vacuum for the train to arrive. Or the liability of our organs exploding due to the G forces on acceleration. Or the liability of all those exploding organs coming out of our mouths when the train decelerates.
But think of the fun one can have putting pennies on the tracks. I bet they would melt. Or destroy a city block when the train derails - make that de-tubes.
Is it fast enough to alter time? Say, I enter the train Monday morning to go to work, and get off the train 10 minutes later, but on Tuesday? (Yes, I live 700 miles from work.)
The problem I see with these resolutions is that they all necessarily must be imprecise in order to have any reasonable application. However, the lack of precision is the very thing that creates loopholes.
I have a resolution: Treat others as you want to be treated. Oh wait, that leaves a loophole for masochists.
There are two problems here: Language evolving in such a way as to smooth over or entirely rewrite history; and, language evolving in a such a way as to become ambiguous. Ghod forbid we lose our marklar to marklar, because before we know it, the marklar will marklar all our marklar, and then we will be left with marklar, and spend the rest of our marklar getting marklared up the marklar.
I think there must be some context within which our universe exists. Unfortunately, that line of thinking only leads to wondering in what context that universe exists, and so on.
The bible has one truly universal and useful passage: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
If we could all live by that we would be just fine. Compassion cannot exist within an entirely logic-based construct; we must believe that something bigger than ourselves grants to each individual life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The alternative is the law under which the planet existed for untold millenia prior to the social contract, i.e., the state of nature. It is perfect and pure in its cold viciousness - well, other than the fact that it gave rise to humans. If some being actually entered a command into Window Universe to start life on earth, at this moment you can bet they are making a futile attempt to end the program.
Except killing civilians is in direct violation of the Qur'an - in fact, it is in the same section that is used to justify suicide bombing, if I recall correctly. It takes a _very_ liberal (mis)reading of the book to justify suicide bombing.
Most Muslims believe suicide bombing is wrong, but Americans really only hear of the extremists - this is like assuming all Christians are like that Waco cult.
It is really difficult to sell newspapers with the headline, "Muslim Walk Into Crowded Cafe and Buys Latte."
So if Einstein turns out to be correct, he is still nothing more than a liar because he lacked the ability to travel near the speed of light? Or does your reasoning only extend to the clergy?
I was raised going to church, so I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt as far as being evil, mislead, or true believers trying to convince the rest of us. That said, I never trusted religion because it is quite simply man's set of rules for how to get to heaven, and its sole purpose is to be needed when in fact it isn't. These days I go by the motto, "When you die you're dead" (hat tip to James Davies) and I can't for the life of me figure out why people line up on either side of the religious debate and waste precious time arguing over that which cannot be proven.
You've never known religious people who are quite comfortable with lying to advance their agenda? I wish I had been so lucky.
And you've never known non-religious people who do the very same thing? The reality is that reality is subjective, despite what very logical people such as myself wish were true. People - everyone - engage in a form of truth manipulation whereby they accentuate those facts which further their cause and diminish those which either don't, or which further the cause of those whom they oppose. It is human nature, and not confined to religious people.
I'm not taking a stand for or against the existence of God; however, until you actually perform the same experiments your trust is no different than faith.
Sure, it's on the table, but beleiving in it is insane. Why pretend you know what causes everything to exist when the reality is we just don't know? I'm an atheist...
One can no more be resolute in the belief in the absence of a god than the belief in the existence of the same. It is, as you state, simply unknowable. Granted, that which cannot be explained - an there is plenty to go around - does not necessitate a higher being of some type.
Strictly speaking, only mathematicians are correct, and only absurdists are not wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Aaaah and now er have slashdot's favourite capitalista [hutman.net]. If the government taxes the rich so hard then how come Warren Buffet's secretary pays a higher rate of tax than Warren Buffet [go.com]?
Are you people still beating that drum? It is probably the difference between tax on ordinary income and tax on capital gains. I am not rich, but I like a low capital gains tax. First, because that money has - depending on the investment vehicle - already been taxed at the ordinary income rate. And, second, because whether I have $100K or $100M in the bank I pay the same 15%.
Best missile defense shield : Chuck Norris.
FTFY
The problem I see with Islamic theocracies - compared to the US constitution saying that we are endowed with unalienable rights by our creator - is that they get their laws from their god, not their rights. The are therefore free to trample on the rights of the individual in the name of their god. In the US, we are free to act like fools in the name of our god.
Rep. Broun needs to learn than belief in god and even Christianity does not mean the big bang or evolution are wrong. One cannot snap their fingers and make a cake; the ingredients must be mixed together and have heat applied. Why should god be able to circumvent the rules just because his cake is the universe?
Shouldn't those be among the best designed, safest, most reliable and secure of devices?
I'm surprised they would allow remote access without a direct connection. It's vulnerable enough in that it relies on electronic timing and can be affected by external electromagnetic forces; but, to make it accessible via wireless/RF/whatever just seems like a bad idea through and though.
I highly doubt you or anyone can conceive, design and build a bearing polishing machine in one day, but I digress. And I understand the effort it takes to "invent" ideas on the web (Amazon "one click," this Google account thing, etc.). I just don't see it as the same as building a physical machine operating in the physical world, and that is the distinction with which I am trying to come to terms. The bar of triviality and obviousness needs to be set in a far different place in software compared to the physical realm.
I'm still foggy on why a patent can be issues for a user interface, some middleware and a relational database. I just don't see that the same level of protection is needed without the same kind of initial effort as, say, developing a machine to implement a ball bearing polishing technique. I can sit down and in a day bang out the code to do what Google patented.
I am a huge fan of the old car wax commercial (DD-27?) where the guy says, "I'm going to pour hydrochloric acid on this car...But wait, I'm first going to pour ammonia on it [audience gasp at 2 toxic chemicals being poured on the shiny car surface!]" Uh, Hi, high school chemistry calling...HCl + NH3 = your paint job is going to be fine.
I think there's enough video evidence from him speaking to prove that point.
Bush said an incredible amount of Really Stupid Things. I find it hard to believe anybody still believes he's anything but a drooling chimp.
Just curious, but when Obama said he had visited 57 states, did you see that as being stupid? How about the unbelievably numerous times he stammers in his non-teleprompter speeches, e.g., I-I-I-I-I-I don't- wha-wha-wha-what I mean; you see, the-the-the..., and so on? Or is he still The Great Orator? Genius, voice of a generation? And Haliburton is evil, but what about Obama's Goldman-Sachs chums in the administration?
We spend so much time complaining, yet it is us - the people, the voters - who opted to sit around and watch television and let politicians warp the constitution to serve their need for power. The right and the left serve the same master. But it isn't the people.
How is this the same? This bill is forcing retailers to accept your old equipment for recycling. As in, you have an old laptop that works or doesn't work, you want to throw it out. Now you can take it to the retailer and deposit it there. Environment fee is not the same thing, though both apples and oranges are fruit.
Correct. And since they can't legally charge to accept your old equipment they add a fee on to the new equipment they sell. Sounds like apples to apples (or PCs to PCs) to me.
Can anyone find the mistake?
LCDs are so 2008. Is there any indium in LED monitors?
What would happen if Google started pulling results from Yahoo!?!?!?!
Maybe that is Kurzweil's "singularity."
Or the liability when we all suffocate while waiting in the vacuum for the train to arrive. Or the liability of our organs exploding due to the G forces on acceleration. Or the liability of all those exploding organs coming out of our mouths when the train decelerates.
But think of the fun one can have putting pennies on the tracks. I bet they would melt. Or destroy a city block when the train derails - make that de-tubes.
Is it fast enough to alter time? Say, I enter the train Monday morning to go to work, and get off the train 10 minutes later, but on Tuesday? (Yes, I live 700 miles from work.)
XKCD reference
The problem I see with these resolutions is that they all necessarily must be imprecise in order to have any reasonable application. However, the lack of precision is the very thing that creates loopholes.
I have a resolution: Treat others as you want to be treated. Oh wait, that leaves a loophole for masochists.
Fuck it. Free for all!
There are two problems here: Language evolving in such a way as to smooth over or entirely rewrite history; and, language evolving in a such a way as to become ambiguous. Ghod forbid we lose our marklar to marklar, because before we know it, the marklar will marklar all our marklar, and then we will be left with marklar, and spend the rest of our marklar getting marklared up the marklar.
Don't forget: We voted for the dicks who passed this legislation. It's our own fault.
*cough* election year *cough*
Because tested once in a lab = on store shelves without further testing next week, right?
No, but tested for five years does not equal 20 years of exposure. Those crazy unknown unknowns...
I think there must be some context within which our universe exists. Unfortunately, that line of thinking only leads to wondering in what context that universe exists, and so on.
The bible has one truly universal and useful passage: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
If we could all live by that we would be just fine. Compassion cannot exist within an entirely logic-based construct; we must believe that something bigger than ourselves grants to each individual life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The alternative is the law under which the planet existed for untold millenia prior to the social contract, i.e., the state of nature. It is perfect and pure in its cold viciousness - well, other than the fact that it gave rise to humans. If some being actually entered a command into Window Universe to start life on earth, at this moment you can bet they are making a futile attempt to end the program.
Except killing civilians is in direct violation of the Qur'an - in fact, it is in the same section that is used to justify suicide bombing, if I recall correctly. It takes a _very_ liberal (mis)reading of the book to justify suicide bombing.
Most Muslims believe suicide bombing is wrong, but Americans really only hear of the extremists - this is like assuming all Christians are like that Waco cult.
It is really difficult to sell newspapers with the headline, "Muslim Walk Into Crowded Cafe and Buys Latte."
So if Einstein turns out to be correct, he is still nothing more than a liar because he lacked the ability to travel near the speed of light? Or does your reasoning only extend to the clergy?
I was raised going to church, so I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt as far as being evil, mislead, or true believers trying to convince the rest of us. That said, I never trusted religion because it is quite simply man's set of rules for how to get to heaven, and its sole purpose is to be needed when in fact it isn't. These days I go by the motto, "When you die you're dead" (hat tip to James Davies) and I can't for the life of me figure out why people line up on either side of the religious debate and waste precious time arguing over that which cannot be proven.
You've never known religious people who are quite comfortable with lying to advance their agenda? I wish I had been so lucky.
And you've never known non-religious people who do the very same thing? The reality is that reality is subjective, despite what very logical people such as myself wish were true. People - everyone - engage in a form of truth manipulation whereby they accentuate those facts which further their cause and diminish those which either don't, or which further the cause of those whom they oppose. It is human nature, and not confined to religious people.
I'm not taking a stand for or against the existence of God; however, until you actually perform the same experiments your trust is no different than faith.
You just better hope those with moderator power use all their point before they scroll this far or you will be marked as flamebait.
Sure, it's on the table, but beleiving in it is insane. Why pretend you know what causes everything to exist when the reality is we just don't know? I'm an atheist ...
One can no more be resolute in the belief in the absence of a god than the belief in the existence of the same. It is, as you state, simply unknowable. Granted, that which cannot be explained - an there is plenty to go around - does not necessitate a higher being of some type.
Strictly speaking, only mathematicians are correct, and only absurdists are not wrong.