I've never seen that many decent computer books in a B&N. My breakdown:
Computer books: 75%-90% drek. Philosophy: 60-80% drek. a lot of deepak chopra crap, but usually some decent books. Math/science: 20%-80% drek. occasionally, a B&N will have a solid selection of real science books and classics (even some Dovers, which are very low-margin relative to other stock).
And then there was the one time i bought Knuth v.1-3 in a discard bin for $6 each. I guess they were replacing them with ``for Dummies" books.
Solution: walk east one block and south six blocks.
Anyway, the computer section being smaller than the philosophy section not only makes sense, but is pleasant. An entire floor of MCSE study guides and "Learn Javascript in Two Days!" gives one the vertigo. The mathematics and science section, now that's important.
Then Google would get into a tiff about manipulating search results, which they don't want.
In that context, this move makes a convoluted and Machiavellian kind of sense. If the sites are gone, there's nothing to index, and Google can claim their search is fair.
It would be trivial to do a poisson regression on (years since introduction of plastic bags)+(current calendar year). The first term would be the effect of the bag ban, and the second would control for exogenous factors.
Sure, this model can be improved in all sorts of ways, e.g. replace calendar time with a better proxy for the general prevalence of c. difficile (while isolating the effect of the increase due to bag use, even though I suspect it'd be minimal), but all-in-all, it's doable.
Specifically, a lot of the honey (75%+) in grocery stores doesn't have the expected amount of pollen that pure honey would have. This doesn't necessarily mean that it's adulterated, of course, but since pollen is completely harmless and does nothing to affect longevity of the product, maybe one should be a bit suspicious about why they're removing it (note: the filtration is a process which increases production cost), if not to cover up fraud.
By contrast, every honey they sampled at farmers markets had the expected pollen. Again, this isn't an exhaustive study, but in contrast I see absolutely no support for your claim.
But if you go to the right person, his customers tend to be more discerning as well. If he sells to a septuagenarian who's been buying his honey for decades, you can be assured that it's probably as good as it ever was. He knows that all he has to compete on is quality and reputation, so he'd damned well better keep it up, or he's toast. The great (and sometimes bad) thing about local economies is that word-of-mouth matters.
The varieties of honey (determined by the predominant flora which the bees gather pollen from) have noticeable differences. Some are subtle; orange blossom honey does taste a little bit like oranges. Tupelo honey costs 2-3x as much and is considered the superior honey, but honestly I can't tell the difference between it and clover. However, I've gotta say any honey labeled as a specific variety is manyfold better than the stuff in the plastic bear. So what if it costs more? A jar of honey lasts me a year. I'll optimize somewhere else.
Now buckwheat honey, if you have a chance to try it, is almost nothing like `normal' honey; you might hate it, but it's worth trying. It is extremely dark and has an odd almost savory/umami taste. It's a bit weird on its own, but if you mix it with an acid (I use apple cider vinegar) and deglaze a steak pan, you get an amazing sauce... it's hard to believe it's only two ingredients (plus the fond and drippings from the steak of course).
Like Javagator said, startup time isn't a problem anymore, but neither is RAM. It's trivial to just keep an emacs window open at all times, and most emacs users do.
Since emacs can do so many things, it's natural to keep it open so you can do them, and since an emacs window is always open, it's natural to extend it to do more things!:)
By reopen, I meant open it in vim, although yeah, you would have to reopen the file in emacs to load the vim changes from disk. It's not a huge problem, but it can get confusing if you have a lot of buffers open and are going back-and-forth.
someone who always has at least one emacs window open wanted to drop into vim for quick edits without having to save and reopen the file. a throng of under-employed people thought it was cool for various reasons and joined in. same as every other open source project. it is its weakness and strength.
If you want to have a better education, work with a professor on independent projects. If the classes are easy, it should be easy for you to impress someone enough to start working with their graduate students; even teaching universities conduct some level of research. This way you'll get a better education and, further, if the professor is at least somewhat known in their field, a strong recommendation will have great value. (I'm assuming you're at a fairly good state school; sadly, things get harder the further down you go.)
Or you can look for prestigious internships though, again, you'll need to impress them somehow. I don't know how this works since I didn't do it that way, but getting real world shit done in addition to getting good grades is probably a good plan.
Good grades have never been, strictly speaking, necessary for success (at least as long as you're not too picky about what kind of success you want...). However, today, neither are they sufficient. Although the cause of this is deplorable, I'm not sure it's a bad outcome all-in-all. This is what economic radicals call `creative destruction' (whether this is a good thing depends on which kind of radical you are). The meaning of grades has been devalued, and something else, quite possibly better, will take their place. Eventually. For now, one has to strive for vague, risky, ill-defined things because the dogma of the existing order is crumbling. It's not easy, but that's also good — it keeps away the dilettantes and hoop-jumpers.
However, I must note that your goal is to ``upgrade" to a BA, as opposed to, say, wanting to learn more about topic X. If that's all you want, what are you complaining about? Just lump it through the classes and grab your fake sheepskin in pleather case.
nice try. they never made such a threat, so it's not extortion.
at any rate, since it's not at all clear that saying bad things about Ron Paul would be illegal (unless of course they were also false), it's also not clear that libertarians would have a problem with your hypothetical extortion. for instance, criticizing blackmail laws is one of the more consistent aspects of libertarians; just google it.
the fact that Ron Paul places a greater utility on this website than anyone else* means only that he is instrumental in establishing the free market price.
the ownership of the domain does have implicit value, now, due to the interest generated by its caretakers. specifically, they could liquidate it by loading the website with scummy advertisements, thus (somewhat inefficiently) cashing out the implicit value for $. this would be destructively establish a lower bound to its current true value. further, if the popularity of the domain is worth $0, then surely the infamy of the ad-infested site would also not incur liability, right? i mean it's still "ronpaul.com", and nothing has changed according to you.
what the terms of the private contract are, is the only point of yours that matters, and i haven't bothered reading it.
*: not entirely obvious that this is true; maybe George Soros would put up $500K to run an attack page on that domain. who knows?
it's not very important since condition (a) is all that matters, but he was offered free use of the inferior ronpaul.org site, rather than the desired ronpaul.com.
by the way, the owners of ronpaul.com claim ``on good authority" that it is Lew Rockwell behind the attack, rather than Ron Paul. if true, it may be interesting to see whether Ron Paul ends up siding with 1) his elite ideologue; or 2) his grassroots support base. my money would be on (1), and if past trends hold, he'll be able to convince (2) that it's in their interest anyway.
did she take out more than she put in? since it was to pay for lung cancer treatment, it probably was.
you can still extend her argument to say that what was taken from her entitled her immediately to the same treatment as everyone else, and it's not necessarily wrong to claim this, but to say that she was ``merely retrieving what was already taken" is disingenuous, proviso the above.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never seen that many decent computer books in a B&N. My breakdown:
Computer books: 75%-90% drek.
Philosophy: 60-80% drek. a lot of deepak chopra crap, but usually some decent books.
Math/science: 20%-80% drek. occasionally, a B&N will have a solid selection of real science books and classics (even some Dovers, which are very low-margin relative to other stock).
And then there was the one time i bought Knuth v.1-3 in a discard bin for $6 each. I guess they were replacing them with ``for Dummies" books.
Solution: walk east one block and south six blocks.
Anyway, the computer section being smaller than the philosophy section not only makes sense, but is pleasant. An entire floor of MCSE study guides and "Learn Javascript in Two Days!" gives one the vertigo. The mathematics and science section, now that's important.
If your achievements are always short of your goals, doesn't that make you a loser?
On the plus side, the government also encourages the simple-minded to die in capricious and plentiful wars. We have that at least.
Make sure it's a well-editorized dictionary. Sometimes there are mistakes in the submitterations, which make it hard to readerize.
Then Google would get into a tiff about manipulating search results, which they don't want.
In that context, this move makes a convoluted and Machiavellian kind of sense. If the sites are gone, there's nothing to index, and Google can claim their search is fair.
Yes.
It would be trivial to do a poisson regression on (years since introduction of plastic bags)+(current calendar year). The first term would be the effect of the bag ban, and the second would control for exogenous factors.
Sure, this model can be improved in all sorts of ways, e.g. replace calendar time with a better proxy for the general prevalence of c. difficile (while isolating the effect of the increase due to bag use, even though I suspect it'd be minimal), but all-in-all, it's doable.
Interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhododendron#Toxicology
Mystery solved. For whatever reason, crystallization's never been a problem for me, but good to know. Thanks.
All your bees are belong to us.
And the hysterical idiot has an account linked to Facebook. Everyone who's surprised by this, raise your hand.
Please go back to forwarding your blithering political conspiracy spam (of whatever wing you belong to) to your relatives and ``friends.''
Yeah, the EU is doing a great job at food monitoring. Fucking hilarious.
This article says differently.
Specifically, a lot of the honey (75%+) in grocery stores doesn't have the expected amount of pollen that pure honey would have. This doesn't necessarily mean that it's adulterated, of course, but since pollen is completely harmless and does nothing to affect longevity of the product, maybe one should be a bit suspicious about why they're removing it (note: the filtration is a process which increases production cost), if not to cover up fraud.
By contrast, every honey they sampled at farmers markets had the expected pollen. Again, this isn't an exhaustive study, but in contrast I see absolutely no support for your claim.
But if you go to the right person, his customers tend to be more discerning as well. If he sells to a septuagenarian who's been buying his honey for decades, you can be assured that it's probably as good as it ever was. He knows that all he has to compete on is quality and reputation, so he'd damned well better keep it up, or he's toast. The great (and sometimes bad) thing about local economies is that word-of-mouth matters.
The varieties of honey (determined by the predominant flora which the bees gather pollen from) have noticeable differences. Some are subtle; orange blossom honey does taste a little bit like oranges. Tupelo honey costs 2-3x as much and is considered the superior honey, but honestly I can't tell the difference between it and clover. However, I've gotta say any honey labeled as a specific variety is manyfold better than the stuff in the plastic bear. So what if it costs more? A jar of honey lasts me a year. I'll optimize somewhere else.
Now buckwheat honey, if you have a chance to try it, is almost nothing like `normal' honey; you might hate it, but it's worth trying. It is extremely dark and has an odd almost savory/umami taste. It's a bit weird on its own, but if you mix it with an acid (I use apple cider vinegar) and deglaze a steak pan, you get an amazing sauce... it's hard to believe it's only two ingredients (plus the fond and drippings from the steak of course).
i agree, but it would still be `whom.'
The angstrom is the SI unit for anxiety and turmoil.
Like Javagator said, startup time isn't a problem anymore, but neither is RAM. It's trivial to just keep an emacs window open at all times, and most emacs users do.
Since emacs can do so many things, it's natural to keep it open so you can do them, and since an emacs window is always open, it's natural to extend it to do more things! :)
By reopen, I meant open it in vim, although yeah, you would have to reopen the file in emacs to load the vim changes from disk. It's not a huge problem, but it can get confusing if you have a lot of buffers open and are going back-and-forth.
someone who always has at least one emacs window open wanted to drop into vim for quick edits without having to save and reopen the file. a throng of under-employed people thought it was cool for various reasons and joined in. same as every other open source project. it is its weakness and strength.
If you want to have a better education, work with a professor on independent projects. If the classes are easy, it should be easy for you to impress someone enough to start working with their graduate students; even teaching universities conduct some level of research. This way you'll get a better education and, further, if the professor is at least somewhat known in their field, a strong recommendation will have great value. (I'm assuming you're at a fairly good state school; sadly, things get harder the further down you go.)
Or you can look for prestigious internships though, again, you'll need to impress them somehow. I don't know how this works since I didn't do it that way, but getting real world shit done in addition to getting good grades is probably a good plan.
Good grades have never been, strictly speaking, necessary for success (at least as long as you're not too picky about what kind of success you want...). However, today, neither are they sufficient. Although the cause of this is deplorable, I'm not sure it's a bad outcome all-in-all. This is what economic radicals call `creative destruction' (whether this is a good thing depends on which kind of radical you are). The meaning of grades has been devalued, and something else, quite possibly better, will take their place. Eventually. For now, one has to strive for vague, risky, ill-defined things because the dogma of the existing order is crumbling. It's not easy, but that's also good — it keeps away the dilettantes and hoop-jumpers.
However, I must note that your goal is to ``upgrade" to a BA, as opposed to, say, wanting to learn more about topic X. If that's all you want, what are you complaining about? Just lump it through the classes and grab your fake sheepskin in pleather case.
very true. people can armchair quarterback real historical battles, let alone fictional ones in a setting where magic exists.
this is why i find the endor holocaust a little more interesting.
nice try. they never made such a threat, so it's not extortion.
at any rate, since it's not at all clear that saying bad things about Ron Paul would be illegal (unless of course they were also false), it's also not clear that libertarians would have a problem with your hypothetical extortion. for instance, criticizing blackmail laws is one of the more consistent aspects of libertarians; just google it.
the fact that Ron Paul places a greater utility on this website than anyone else* means only that he is instrumental in establishing the free market price.
the ownership of the domain does have implicit value, now, due to the interest generated by its caretakers. specifically, they could liquidate it by loading the website with scummy advertisements, thus (somewhat inefficiently) cashing out the implicit value for $. this would be destructively establish a lower bound to its current true value. further, if the popularity of the domain is worth $0, then surely the infamy of the ad-infested site would also not incur liability, right? i mean it's still "ronpaul.com", and nothing has changed according to you.
what the terms of the private contract are, is the only point of yours that matters, and i haven't bothered reading it.
*: not entirely obvious that this is true; maybe George Soros would put up $500K to run an attack page on that domain. who knows?
it's not very important since condition (a) is all that matters, but he was offered free use of the inferior ronpaul.org site, rather than the desired ronpaul.com.
by the way, the owners of ronpaul.com claim ``on good authority" that it is Lew Rockwell behind the attack, rather than Ron Paul. if true, it may be interesting to see whether Ron Paul ends up siding with 1) his elite ideologue; or 2) his grassroots support base. my money would be on (1), and if past trends hold, he'll be able to convince (2) that it's in their interest anyway.
did she take out more than she put in? since it was to pay for lung cancer treatment, it probably was.
you can still extend her argument to say that what was taken from her entitled her immediately to the same treatment as everyone else, and it's not necessarily wrong to claim this, but to say that she was ``merely retrieving what was already taken" is disingenuous, proviso the above.