Where I'm from the law is that you must do that. If you are turning across traffic as lights you claim the intersection by stopping part way across and go when it is safe. If there's lots of traffic you will end up turning on the red which is fine. There will be a red both ways for a short time and you are half way across the intersection so even though you are turning you have enough of a head start on the traffic.
I'll lay money on it being a kid thing. If you spend all your time indoors later on in life your eyes aren't going to forget how to focus on distant objects. The problem for kids is that their eyes don't learn in the first place (my unscientific opinion, use lots of salt).
I suspect a significant chunk of the "tech geek" population were into computers and so on as kids and spent more time using them and less time playing football than the average kid. And hence there'd be a correlation with myopia and "tech geekedness".
But that's not a common trait for geeks, that's just a defect your eyes have. Blind people don't benefit from 3-D movies either, that some groups exist that don't want them is irrelevant to them being made (as long as those groups are relatively small).
The more time you spend indoors the more likely you are to develop myopia (near sightedness) - which makes sense since your eyes aren't getting any practice/development in focusing on distant objects.
I would think tech geeks spend less time doiung outdoor activities than average - after all "tech" is usually indoors.
Of course. You have some irrational need to penalize people. And hence even when something is shown to be more effective - in other words costs less than other methods for the same benefit - you won't do it because it conflicts with your deluded world view.
Luckily for the rest of us, you don't get to veto everything.
I don't think paying low income children to do well in school is going to turn them into college graduates.
Because if you'd bother reading for a minute you'd see you aren't paying them to do well in school.
In fact the group they did the "pay for good grades" saw no improvement in grades at all.
The case that worked was paying them per book read. Surprise, surprise, they read more books. Surprise, surprise they did better on the readings tests. And continued doing better after the study was finished and they were not being paid anymore.
That's just stupid. When I pay for my lunch I'm paying for my lunch not for the previous guys lunch (and the next guy pays for mine).
My taxes pay for the current education system, not for my education. Claiming otherwise is just plain moronic.
Especially since I'm not alone in the simple fact that the place collecting my taxes didn't spend anything on my education anyway (a different damn country paid for it).
Obviously there's a point at which a job you enjoy is worth more than a job you don't and more money.
But your job is so enjoyable that you would (for no money) choose to do it over spending time with the wife/kids/whatever then the rest of your life must suck.
I really like my job too. Doesn't compare with kicking a ball with the kid though. Or doing the hobbies I do already.
If I wasn't being paid to work, I certainly wouldn't be doing it. Playing with the kid is much more fun, heck watching TV is more fun. There's a bunch of my own stuff I'd like prefer to do as well.
Because there has to be a relatively uncorrupted third party to enforce contracts for a market to function properly. That's why strong governments dominate economically worldwide. When a government is unable to enforce it's own laws, either by lack of power or by corruption of it's governing body, it's called a failed state.
Enforcing contracts is not what is being referred to by "government regulation" in this context. And of course you know it.
Well yes, you do need government regulation if the government intentionally fucks over the market correction.
If Glass Steagall had been left intact, there would be nothing to correct. It kept the markets from crashing for well over 70 years, because it forced financial institutions to remain too small to get bailed out. Deregulation of Savings and Loan institutions led to the Savings and Loan Crisis. Deregulation of the banks - The Financial Services Act of 1999 - led to the conditions that make the banks to big to fail.
I don't disagree repealing Glass Steagall was retarded.
I disagree on the conclusion you make from that. The only reason such regulation is required in the first place is because the government fucked up the market already. Remove government setting of interest rates, remove government distortion of lending markets though things like FHA loan guarantees, Freddie and Fannie, student loan guarantees, FDIC insuranc, etc, etc, and you won't need the regulations.
Obviously if the government intervenes it is going to need to them.
You can't have no regulations with ridiculous government interventions. But you don't need those interventions.
Yes you need regulations if you want a society wroth living in. No you don't need regulations to solve every little problem that markets will handle perfectly well.
Loan originators making and selling on bad loans in an obvious thing that will be automatically corrected - the buyers will go broke, then the originators won't be able to sell and will go broke. Simple.
Of course if the government sets interest rates so low that you really can't lose on the spread and couples that with loan guarantees then of course the market won't correct - the "going broke" step can't happen in that environment. Using that as a reason for government regulation is crazy - the problem is caused by government intervention in the first place.
If the Fed had interest rates at 15%, where they should have been, in 2003 - do you really think we'd have a housing bubble to crash? Do you really think wall street would have resorted to ridiculous levels of leverage in order to earn a reasonable rate of return?
Oh yes, because they know what they are talking about. They pointed out the obviousness of the coming inevitable crash in the US economy in 2002, right? And saw through the bubble building low interest rates? Right???
I would think that the entities buying those CDOs would all be bankrupt by now and hence not buying anymore putting an end to such a ridiculous setup. Or at least not making enough money to continue funding such schemes.
Oh, the government bailed them out you say? And the government buys the CODs too?
Well yes, you do need government regulation if the government intentionally fucks over the market correction.
You want a large glide ratio so you can lose as little altitude as possible (for distance traveled) at night (or alternatively use the engines as little as possible to maintain altitude).
Get as much altitude as you can during the day when power is plentiful, lose as little as possible at night.
"an average speed of 70 kph" - "won't come close" is an understatement.
I would think you'd aim to build something that can act as a glider (and the long narrow wings in the picture look like they are) at night. With batteries giving engines when you need them, but not requiring batteries big (and heavy) enough to last the 18 hours or so when the sun is either not visible too low for the solar panels to generate much power.
Either way, you are going to east with the jet streams - that's going to have far more impact than day length variance.
It doesn't matter because that's all completely irrelevant.
The wounded guy was classified as an enemy (they had after all just shot at him) but the gun operator didn't shoot him (again) because the rules didn't allow him to as he didn't have a weapon at the time.
So clearly being an "enemy" is not a sufficient reason to shoot at them.
So he didn't shoot the wounded guy because he didn't have a weapon. Suddenly when there's someone else near him who also doesn't have a weapon it's OK to shoot him?
It makes no sense at all.
If they thought the guys in the car had weapons they would have said so in their request to fire on them.
This isn't a war in the open desert, this is in the middle of a town in which people live. No wonder the anti-war people have so much ammunition if shooting anyone who might be an insurgent is considered OK.
Slashdot Mirror
Where I'm from the law is that you must do that. If you are turning across traffic as lights you claim the intersection by stopping part way across and go when it is safe. If there's lots of traffic you will end up turning on the red which is fine. There will be a red both ways for a short time and you are half way across the intersection so even though you are turning you have enough of a head start on the traffic.
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragview/inforce/subordleg+179+2008+pt.6-div.1-rule.61+0+N
I'll lay money on it being a kid thing. If you spend all your time indoors later on in life your eyes aren't going to forget how to focus on distant objects. The problem for kids is that their eyes don't learn in the first place (my unscientific opinion, use lots of salt).
I suspect a significant chunk of the "tech geek" population were into computers and so on as kids and spent more time using them and less time playing football than the average kid. And hence there'd be a correlation with myopia and "tech geekedness".
But that's not a common trait for geeks, that's just a defect your eyes have. Blind people don't benefit from 3-D movies either, that some groups exist that don't want them is irrelevant to them being made (as long as those groups are relatively small).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18294691
The more time you spend indoors the more likely you are to develop myopia (near sightedness) - which makes sense since your eyes aren't getting any practice/development in focusing on distant objects.
I would think tech geeks spend less time doiung outdoor activities than average - after all "tech" is usually indoors.
He means those javascripted WYSIWYG editor widgets, like: http://tinymce.moxiecode.com/examples/full.php
Of course. You have some irrational need to penalize people. And hence even when something is shown to be more effective - in other words costs less than other methods for the same benefit - you won't do it because it conflicts with your deluded world view.
Luckily for the rest of us, you don't get to veto everything.
I don't think paying low income children to do well in school is going to turn them into college graduates.
Because if you'd bother reading for a minute you'd see you aren't paying them to do well in school.
In fact the group they did the "pay for good grades" saw no improvement in grades at all.
The case that worked was paying them per book read. Surprise, surprise, they read more books. Surprise, surprise they did better on the readings tests. And continued doing better after the study was finished and they were not being paid anymore.
That's just stupid. When I pay for my lunch I'm paying for my lunch not for the previous guys lunch (and the next guy pays for mine).
My taxes pay for the current education system, not for my education. Claiming otherwise is just plain moronic.
Especially since I'm not alone in the simple fact that the place collecting my taxes didn't spend anything on my education anyway (a different damn country paid for it).
But would you do it for *no* money?
There's nothing you would prefer to do instead?
Obviously there's a point at which a job you enjoy is worth more than a job you don't and more money.
But your job is so enjoyable that you would (for no money) choose to do it over spending time with the wife/kids/whatever then the rest of your life must suck.
I really like my job too. Doesn't compare with kicking a ball with the kid though. Or doing the hobbies I do already.
why do you think adults require motivation?
If I wasn't being paid to work, I certainly wouldn't be doing it. Playing with the kid is much more fun, heck watching TV is more fun. There's a bunch of my own stuff I'd like prefer to do as well.
The point is that when Forbes is running opinion columns called "Laissez-Faire Capitalism Has Failed" then you should be paying attention.
Why?
They've always been wrong before.
I guess the difference is I rreally see no problem with bank failures every couple of decades and a "depression" following it.
Certainly seems better than the complete economic collapse that has probably already crossed the point of inevitability.
I can read, in fact I used the text the article said they used in the damn question - you know the one you said "Good, I don't either" too.
Obviously in science when you say "I believe X" you mean "X has the most evidence and is currently the best understanding we have".
So basically you have no point, other than that you choose to assign different meanings to words than the rest of us.
So you would disagree with the statement: "Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals."
I think you're much further into that priest category than you care to admit.
Why does it require government regulation?
Because there has to be a relatively uncorrupted third party to enforce contracts for a market to function properly. That's why strong governments dominate economically worldwide. When a government is unable to enforce it's own laws, either by lack of power or by corruption of it's governing body, it's called a failed state.
Enforcing contracts is not what is being referred to by "government regulation" in this context. And of course you know it.
Well yes, you do need government regulation if the government intentionally fucks over the market correction.
If Glass Steagall had been left intact, there would be nothing to correct. It kept the markets from crashing for well over 70 years, because it forced financial institutions to remain too small to get bailed out. Deregulation of Savings and Loan institutions led to the Savings and Loan Crisis. Deregulation of the banks - The Financial Services Act of 1999 - led to the conditions that make the banks to big to fail.
I don't disagree repealing Glass Steagall was retarded.
I disagree on the conclusion you make from that. The only reason such regulation is required in the first place is because the government fucked up the market already. Remove government setting of interest rates, remove government distortion of lending markets though things like FHA loan guarantees, Freddie and Fannie, student loan guarantees, FDIC insuranc, etc, etc, and you won't need the regulations.
Obviously if the government intervenes it is going to need to them.
You can't have no regulations with ridiculous government interventions. But you don't need those interventions.
Yes you need regulations if you want a society wroth living in. No you don't need regulations to solve every little problem that markets will handle perfectly well.
Loan originators making and selling on bad loans in an obvious thing that will be automatically corrected - the buyers will go broke, then the originators won't be able to sell and will go broke. Simple.
Of course if the government sets interest rates so low that you really can't lose on the spread and couples that with loan guarantees then of course the market won't correct - the "going broke" step can't happen in that environment. Using that as a reason for government regulation is crazy - the problem is caused by government intervention in the first place.
If the Fed had interest rates at 15%, where they should have been, in 2003 - do you really think we'd have a housing bubble to crash? Do you really think wall street would have resorted to ridiculous levels of leverage in order to earn a reasonable rate of return?
[snippage]
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/18/depression-financial-crisis-capitalism-opinions-columnists_recession_stimulus.html
Oh yes, because they know what they are talking about. They pointed out the obviousness of the coming inevitable crash in the US economy in 2002, right? And saw through the bubble building low interest rates? Right???
You think we've finished?
But you're right it won't be anything like the Great Depression, that was after all deflationary in nature.
I think you mean "causes".
Why does it require government regulation?
I would think that the entities buying those CDOs would all be bankrupt by now and hence not buying anymore putting an end to such a ridiculous setup. Or at least not making enough money to continue funding such schemes.
Oh, the government bailed them out you say? And the government buys the CODs too?
Well yes, you do need government regulation if the government intentionally fucks over the market correction.
Why?
Neither is a current threat.
That's soaring not gliding...
You want a large glide ratio so you can lose as little altitude as possible (for distance traveled) at night (or alternatively use the engines as little as possible to maintain altitude).
Get as much altitude as you can during the day when power is plentiful, lose as little as possible at night.
Are you an idiot?
They aren't claiming first ever solar flight.
They aren't claiming that the solar thing is new and amazing.
They aren't claiming it is impressive in itself.
They are claiming it's a significant milestone on the path to their goal.
though I should state that I did make a typo, read 16 where I wrote 18.
I'm not assuming, I'm trusting what the builders/designers state:
http://www.solarimpulse.com/en/documents/challenge_gamble.php?lang=en&group=challenge
"an average speed of 70 kph" - "won't come close" is an understatement.
I would think you'd aim to build something that can act as a glider (and the long narrow wings in the picture look like they are) at night. With batteries giving engines when you need them, but not requiring batteries big (and heavy) enough to last the 18 hours or so when the sun is either not visible too low for the solar panels to generate much power.
Either way, you are going to east with the jet streams - that's going to have far more impact than day length variance.
It doesn't matter because that's all completely irrelevant.
The wounded guy was classified as an enemy (they had after all just shot at him) but the gun operator didn't shoot him (again) because the rules didn't allow him to as he didn't have a weapon at the time.
So clearly being an "enemy" is not a sufficient reason to shoot at them.
So he didn't shoot the wounded guy because he didn't have a weapon. Suddenly when there's someone else near him who also doesn't have a weapon it's OK to shoot him?
It makes no sense at all.
If they thought the guys in the car had weapons they would have said so in their request to fire on them.
This isn't a war in the open desert, this is in the middle of a town in which people live. No wonder the anti-war people have so much ammunition if shooting anyone who might be an insurgent is considered OK.
Being able to market yourself as "US based, and US regulated" would be an advantage in attracting players.
Being able to transfer money to and from US bank accounts without engaging in international transfers would be an advantage in attracting US players.
Being able to transfer money directly full stop to US players would be an advantage.