Sure, but then you can't sell the book when you're done with it.
A perfectly good book (used only once to scan it) and its accompanying digitized version (he's not allowed to keep it after all) will fetch a lot more than a cut up book or even bulk recycled paper.
Well, since the you're more likely to get lung or throat cancers if you're a smoker, logically there are two possible causes:
1) Smoking increases the likelihood of getting these cancers 2) Having increased chance of getting these cancers, makes you more susceptible to start smoking
Well... 3) God thinks smoking is cool and intervenes to get more cool people into heaven.
Biggest ever gross revenue. Less profit per movie. Fewer movies made.
That doesn't mean "movies are shit", because with fewer movies and the biggest gross revenue ever, they have either had the higher ticket prices or more tickets sold. Since 2008 was about 10 billion and 2009 is ~10.6 billon we're looking at an 6% increase in ticket prices or ticket numbers. Probably a mix of the two.
But if fewer movies were released in 2009 vs 2008, then the 6% increase in ticket prices/ticket numbers won't cover it.
What is more likely though, is that the average cost of a movie has gone up. If we have an 6% increase in gross revenue, but a 10% increase in average cost of a movie, you'll re declining profit. But a 10% increase in the cost of a movie cannot not be caused by copyright infringement - copyright infringement can only reduce income, not increase expense. In other words, the movie industry only has itself to blame for decreased profits when they set box office records with fewer movies.
Without having the exact numbers for 2008 and 2009 (tickets sold, average ticket price, number of movies released, average budget etc), we can't know for certain.
As a rule, I think it is not smart to fuck with armed people who work in jobs where they are much more likely to be killed (however 'rarely') than those of us in 'normal' jobs.
So the crab fishermen of Alaska are certainly allowed to fuck with cops then?
Occupations with higher risks of dying on the job: Workplace fatalities Fishermen 147.2 deaths/100,000 Pilots 90.4 deaths/100,000 Timber cutter 84.6 deaths/100,000 Structural metal workers 61.0 deaths/100,000 Waste collectors 40.7 deaths/100,000 Farmers and ranchers 37.2 deaths/100,000 Power-line workers 34.9 deaths/100,000 Miners 34.5 deaths/100,000 Roofers 33.5 deaths/100,000 Truck drivers 27.5 deaths/100,000
The list only shows the top ten professions.
Essentially what you're arguing is, that anyone on that list should be allowed to smack you across the face with one of their work implements while on the job, because they have a dangerous job.
Sure, the police have a dangerous job. Big fucking deal. It's not like they didn't know before they signed up. It's not sprung on you after you've gone through training like some kind of huge secret. Unlike waste collectors - that one surprised me.
Well, my maths are quite a bit off. Forgot that it takes 1,000 cm^3 to make a litre, not just 100. So my suitcase is only about 40 litres. Should still be plenty of explosives.
Well, I have a better target in mind: The check-in lines.
The typical large crowds are at the check-in counters rather than security check points.
Take a typical large suitcase. Fill it with C4 and line it with large steel bearings. No need to get through security, as your target is the crowd rather than an air-plane.
For added bonus points use several suitcases and design them to be used as shaped charges to cut through large concrete and/or steel columns. Wire all of them to be triggered by a single trigger, get a gang of suicide bombers to help you out and take out an entire airport terminal.
My big suitcase can fit about 400 litres, which should be plenty of explosives (about 650 kg C4) to take out any kind of support column. Granted, you'd need to heavily reinforce the suitcase, but I'm sure smarter and more knowledgeable people than me can do better.
So... now you're committing fraud to get access to a service?
IF the price difference was due to differences in VAT etc, I wouldn't mind as much, but it's a flat 2$ wherever you are, not US-price minus US VAT (that Amazon doesn't pay) + localized VAT.
VAT on books in Denmark: 25% VAT on books in the UK: 0%
So why is the price exactly the same in those two countries? Because Amazon is ripping us off.
Have you looked in their trash bin of confiscated items?
This bit actually says it all.
1) You're not allowed to bring liquids above a certain quantity for fears it might be part of an explosive device 2) Throw said components into an open trash can 3) Repeat 1 and 2 until you hit critical mass 4) Throw an igniter into the trash can 5) Big boom
When's the last time you saw the police or military treat a package like that, when they suspect it might be an explosive? It never happens. They take very serious steps to prevent injuries, going as far as blowing up small bags of bikinis.
But at the airport, where you have hundreds of people standing in line, you're supposed to just toss it all into an open container next to the line. Security indeed.
Wake me up when there's an ebook reader that works more like a real book. It should have softish covers, and once you open it, there should be 2 screens inside (one for each page). This way the screens would be protected all the time, and it would feel more natural as a reading tool
Just Curious: How do you handle electronic mail, what with the absence of stamps and envelopes and licking and such?
Oh, he still uses stamps and envelopes, but it's hellish expensive for him, having to buy a new monitor every time, and let's not forget that people keep complaining that there's nothing on the monitor once they get their letters.
You make it sound as if no men are ever physically abused by their wives.
What happens when a woman finally fights back (and perhaps ends up killing her husband)? She's lauded as a hero. What happens when a man finally fights back (and perhaps ends up killing his wife)? He's definitely not lauded as a hero, that much is for sure.
And if all he does is punch her and run away, who is the one likely to end up being crucified in court and the media?
Granted, they live longer, but I doubt the average life span has increased that much for those two groups in that short a time span. The article does say that better techniques have made it easier to diagnose the cancers, but there's still a big gap between male and female.
Actually, checking with Dansk Statistik (Denmark's statistical bureau) the average life span in 1987-1988 was 71.84 for men and 77.70 for women, and it was 76.26/80.70 in 2007-2008. That's 6.15% for men and 3.86% for women over a 20 year period.
Extending that to 29 years, you get an increase of 9.04% for men 5.64% for women. That pretty much matches the increase for women, but you're still lacking a large chunk for men. I couldn't find statistics for 1979 though, so I can't say if that would change anything.
'From 1974 to 2003, the incidence rate of glioma (a type of brain tumor) increased by 0.5 per cent per year among men and by 0.2 per cent per year among women,' they wrote.
0.5%/year for 29 years is 1.005^29 = 1.1556 or 15.56% increase for men, 5.97% for women.
That leads to a few hypotheses from me: 1) Men think with their cock (the cellphone is usually kept in trouser pockets) 2) We've gotten slowly better at finding these cancers (but why is the increase that much higher in men?) 3) Some other carcinogen in our environment is becoming more common, and it affects men more than women.
I'm going with Sagan on this one: "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge and there is no place for it in the endeavor of science."
This is a good quote, but not very suitable in this debate, as most of the "sceptics" are not sceptical as in "can be convinced if shown proper evidence" but are sceptical as in "I believe [whatever] and cannot be convinced otherwise".
The former deserves to be heard - if they can behave at the debate, i.e. not asking questions that have already been asked and answered and know that certain things are not only "not right but it is entirely possible for things to be "not wrong" as well. Unfortunately very few people fall into this category.
We all know them - these are the people who will swear up and down, on their mother's left tit, to God and all the heavens, that it is impossible to do something, and when you then show them how to do it, will tell you that this wasn't what they meant, and they knew it all along, and you're just an idiot showing off.
Like the people screaming their lungs off at the town hall meetings, calling Obama a nazi and holding signs saying "Keep your government hands out of my medicaid". Whether or not you want the government to introduce public health care for everyone, you do have to agree that neither of those shows any kind of willingness to change your position, nor a willingness to be informed about the subject at hand.
Some people quite simply do not belong at a debate or discussion on something. Period.
I do have to wonder how you decide what is the east side of a continent, that is centred around the magnetic pole. I'd say that it's all the northern side of the continent;)
You could of course say that everything between the 0th and 180th eastern longitudes are the eastern side and that 0th to 180th western are the western side - still doesn't make much sense, when you can be standing on both sides at the same time;)
Although I like this idea. Won't it just deplete our supply of fresh water?
The power plant is at the ocean next to a river.
The river's fresh water runs into the ocean as it is. That's just how nature works. All this is doing is diverting some of the water into the power plant and mixing the water there. What they're doing is siphoning off gravity and osmotic pressure, and THOSE are the vital resources that will be depleted instead.
Slashdot Mirror
I amz hidingz in ur morgue, ready to killz anyone who movez.
Sure, but then you can't sell the book when you're done with it.
A perfectly good book (used only once to scan it) and its accompanying digitized version (he's not allowed to keep it after all) will fetch a lot more than a cut up book or even bulk recycled paper.
Usually it'll take a minimum of five minutes for the police to respond to a call. DSS even longer.
I'm fairly certain you can do a lot of disciplining to the kid, before they manage to show up. You know - give them a reason to be there ;)
Well, since the you're more likely to get lung or throat cancers if you're a smoker, logically there are two possible causes:
1) Smoking increases the likelihood of getting these cancers
2) Having increased chance of getting these cancers, makes you more susceptible to start smoking
Well ... 3) God thinks smoking is cool and intervenes to get more cool people into heaven.
Biggest ever gross revenue.
Less profit per movie.
Fewer movies made.
That doesn't mean "movies are shit", because with fewer movies and the biggest gross revenue ever, they have either had the higher ticket prices or more tickets sold. Since 2008 was about 10 billion and 2009 is ~10.6 billon we're looking at an 6% increase in ticket prices or ticket numbers. Probably a mix of the two.
But if fewer movies were released in 2009 vs 2008, then the 6% increase in ticket prices/ticket numbers won't cover it.
What is more likely though, is that the average cost of a movie has gone up. If we have an 6% increase in gross revenue, but a 10% increase in average cost of a movie, you'll re declining profit. But a 10% increase in the cost of a movie cannot not be caused by copyright infringement - copyright infringement can only reduce income, not increase expense. In other words, the movie industry only has itself to blame for decreased profits when they set box office records with fewer movies.
Without having the exact numbers for 2008 and 2009 (tickets sold, average ticket price, number of movies released, average budget etc), we can't know for certain.
So the crab fishermen of Alaska are certainly allowed to fuck with cops then?
Number of US police officers who died in the line of duty in 2005: 156
Number of US police officers in 2004: 731,903 state and local
Deaths per 100,000: 21.31. This includes all kinds of deaths like having a heart attack on the job
Occupations with higher risks of dying on the job:
Workplace fatalities
Fishermen 147.2 deaths/100,000
Pilots 90.4 deaths/100,000
Timber cutter 84.6 deaths/100,000
Structural metal workers 61.0 deaths/100,000
Waste collectors 40.7 deaths/100,000
Farmers and ranchers 37.2 deaths/100,000
Power-line workers 34.9 deaths/100,000
Miners 34.5 deaths/100,000
Roofers 33.5 deaths/100,000
Truck drivers 27.5 deaths/100,000
The list only shows the top ten professions.
Essentially what you're arguing is, that anyone on that list should be allowed to smack you across the face with one of their work implements while on the job, because they have a dangerous job.
Sure, the police have a dangerous job. Big fucking deal. It's not like they didn't know before they signed up. It's not sprung on you after you've gone through training like some kind of huge secret. Unlike waste collectors - that one surprised me.
Well, my maths are quite a bit off. Forgot that it takes 1,000 cm^3 to make a litre, not just 100. So my suitcase is only about 40 litres. Should still be plenty of explosives.
My point was more along the lines of "plenty of space for a big boom" than "it'd be feasible to fit 650 kg of explosives into a suitcase".
Well, I have a better target in mind: The check-in lines.
The typical large crowds are at the check-in counters rather than security check points.
Take a typical large suitcase. Fill it with C4 and line it with large steel bearings. No need to get through security, as your target is the crowd rather than an air-plane.
For added bonus points use several suitcases and design them to be used as shaped charges to cut through large concrete and/or steel columns. Wire all of them to be triggered by a single trigger, get a gang of suicide bombers to help you out and take out an entire airport terminal.
My big suitcase can fit about 400 litres, which should be plenty of explosives (about 650 kg C4) to take out any kind of support column. Granted, you'd need to heavily reinforce the suitcase, but I'm sure smarter and more knowledgeable people than me can do better.
So ... now you're committing fraud to get access to a service?
IF the price difference was due to differences in VAT etc, I wouldn't mind as much, but it's a flat 2$ wherever you are, not US-price minus US VAT (that Amazon doesn't pay) + localized VAT.
VAT on books in Denmark: 25%
VAT on books in the UK: 0%
So why is the price exactly the same in those two countries? Because Amazon is ripping us off.
This bit actually says it all.
1) You're not allowed to bring liquids above a certain quantity for fears it might be part of an explosive device
2) Throw said components into an open trash can
3) Repeat 1 and 2 until you hit critical mass
4) Throw an igniter into the trash can
5) Big boom
When's the last time you saw the police or military treat a package like that, when they suspect it might be an explosive? It never happens. They take very serious steps to prevent injuries, going as far as blowing up small bags of bikinis.
But at the airport, where you have hundreds of people standing in line, you're supposed to just toss it all into an open container next to the line. Security indeed.
Oh, he still uses stamps and envelopes, but it's hellish expensive for him, having to buy a new monitor every time, and let's not forget that people keep complaining that there's nothing on the monitor once they get their letters.
Sure. And you're paying more for them and getting fewer to pick from.
Oh, and no Wikipedia surfing for you either.
And for all that, you get to pay more than in the US. Yay!
You make it sound as if no men are ever physically abused by their wives.
What happens when a woman finally fights back (and perhaps ends up killing her husband)? She's lauded as a hero.
What happens when a man finally fights back (and perhaps ends up killing his wife)? He's definitely not lauded as a hero, that much is for sure.
And if all he does is punch her and run away, who is the one likely to end up being crucified in court and the media?
Granted, they live longer, but I doubt the average life span has increased that much for those two groups in that short a time span. The article does say that better techniques have made it easier to diagnose the cancers, but there's still a big gap between male and female.
Actually, checking with Dansk Statistik (Denmark's statistical bureau) the average life span in 1987-1988 was 71.84 for men and 77.70 for women, and it was 76.26/80.70 in 2007-2008. That's 6.15% for men and 3.86% for women over a 20 year period.
Extending that to 29 years, you get an increase of 9.04% for men 5.64% for women. That pretty much matches the increase for women, but you're still lacking a large chunk for men. I couldn't find statistics for 1979 though, so I can't say if that would change anything.
0.5%/year for 29 years is 1.005^29 = 1.1556 or 15.56% increase for men, 5.97% for women.
That leads to a few hypotheses from me:
1) Men think with their cock (the cellphone is usually kept in trouser pockets)
2) We've gotten slowly better at finding these cancers (but why is the increase that much higher in men?)
3) Some other carcinogen in our environment is becoming more common, and it affects men more than women.
And no, I haven't read the article.
Apparently the representative of the ministry doesn't think so.
All countries have their touchy subjects.
I'm sure you'd have a lot of fun trying to market a game in the US, wherein the Ku Klux Klan go on Nigger Lynchings and Kike Crucifixions.
Or a Vietnam War game where a mission includes various atrocities that need to be done to complete it.
Maybe one based on the current conflict in Iraq, where you can earn the Abeer Qasim Hamza achievement.
I certainly hope you don't have family members in the armed services staying over the holidays ...
Just to clarify, as I'm sure some people will wonder why Hitler wrote a book during the war:
Mein Kampf was published in 1925, eight years before Hitler rose to power in Germany.
I see your goatse.cx and raise you a boatse.cx.
Can't stop me motherfucker cause I'm on a boat!
This is a good quote, but not very suitable in this debate, as most of the "sceptics" are not sceptical as in "can be convinced if shown proper evidence" but are sceptical as in "I believe [whatever] and cannot be convinced otherwise".
The former deserves to be heard - if they can behave at the debate, i.e. not asking questions that have already been asked and answered and know that certain things are not only "not right but it is entirely possible for things to be " not wrong " as well. Unfortunately very few people fall into this category.
We all know them - these are the people who will swear up and down, on their mother's left tit, to God and all the heavens, that it is impossible to do something, and when you then show them how to do it, will tell you that this wasn't what they meant, and they knew it all along, and you're just an idiot showing off.
Like the people screaming their lungs off at the town hall meetings, calling Obama a nazi and holding signs saying " Keep your government hands out of my medicaid ". Whether or not you want the government to introduce public health care for everyone, you do have to agree that neither of those shows any kind of willingness to change your position, nor a willingness to be informed about the subject at hand.
Some people quite simply do not belong at a debate or discussion on something. Period.
I do have to wonder how you decide what is the east side of a continent, that is centred around the magnetic pole. I'd say that it's all the northern side of the continent ;)
You could of course say that everything between the 0th and 180th eastern longitudes are the eastern side and that 0th to 180th western are the western side - still doesn't make much sense, when you can be standing on both sides at the same time ;)
Is only a problem for us - i.e. we have 100% of the problems.
Now, if it is dangerous for thousands of years, it'll be a problem for maybe 100 generations - then we only have 1% of the problems.
And I'd rather have 1% of the problem than 100% of it!
</joke>
The power plant is at the ocean next to a river.
The river's fresh water runs into the ocean as it is. That's just how nature works. All this is doing is diverting some of the water into the power plant and mixing the water there. What they're doing is siphoning off gravity and osmotic pressure, and THOSE are the vital resources that will be depleted instead.