The self-insured don't pay for insurance, they simply have enough money to cover the costs of risk.
I guess I see what you're getting at, the deferred price of nuclear risk needs to be included and upfront. But this sort is the sort of thing that would break the bank even for the insurance company if it ever came to pass. (which would then get bailed). My advice is to simply have this sort of thing be a public utility. Deregulation of the power industry has been a nightmare and ultimately more expensive and unsafe.
Is he running for president again?
Man, remember all that environmentalist crap he kept harping about when he was campaigning in 2000? Oh wait, he didn't.
You're an anonymous coward who is getting his facts wrong. Verifiably wrong. You're mis-representing history about global cooling, see the Wikipedia pages on it, specifically thesetwo sections. And you're leaping at any shred of recent news and claiming it's the viewpoint of all of "them" (scientists, of course).
If you're aghast that something is considered insightful, it probably really is.
I don't think he's every really "turned". He's just moved on to advanced social engineering where through careful terminology and mystical ties he convinces suits to part with their money. All to hear his honeyed words of wisdom and to bestow upon them sage advice he gained through meditating in seclusion.
Errr. So yeah, "consultant" works pretty well I guess....
And do you think that a nuclear accident is NOT going to be cleaned up if a privatized nuclear powerplant runs without insurance?
For a sufficiently sized accident (anything that would leave "a mess to clean up"), no amount of insurance would save a corporation from oblivion.
Do you think that the government wouldn't step in, and would really just leave it to the free market?
Also note that 85% of EDF, the biggest french nuclear company, is owned by... wait for it.... the french government.
Wouldn't you think that the french government has enough capitol to self-insure? I mean, it's cheaper and more efficient. Why wouldn't they self-insure? You do, hopefully, understand what it means to self-insure, right?
Ah, yes, "stupidhood". I guess you'd be an expert on that wouldn't you.
You are, simply put, wrong. And on a number of levels and from a number of angles. Let me count:
1) It is, in fact, the "security guys" fault for not anticipating all the chaos that is possible in the world. That's their job. They are there to provide security, mitigate risks, and generally make people safe. And it is entirely due to their lack of diligence and their general incompetence. For the intrusions that I've gone over, LulSec did not make use of zero-day vulnerabilities or unknown mystical powers. They used well known vectors that competent "security guys" could have protected against. The only other positions you can share the blame with is their boss. And of course, LulSec themselves.
2) You hate lulsec, that's apparent. It's going beyond that though. You are so biased that you are making presumptions about them by calling them children. Calling them pricks and twats is simply name-calling, but the point where your demonizing influences the facts you know about them is self-deluding.
3) Pride. You elevate and praise yourself. It's good to speak well, and a little ego is good, but you're just kinda coming off as a douche.
4) You generalize that all teenagers are full of hate.
5) You also generalize that your entire generation is somehow above being this sort of "big prick", even after having just stated that your generation performed similar actions.
6) Sociopaths really do make the most productive CEOs. You have to remove yourself to a certain degree to be able to crush a persons livelihood. Not everyone can be a hatchet-man. Anyway, there have been studies and the signs of a good CEO are similar to the signs for sociopaths. But everyone has a little bit in them and sociology is a ludicrously soft science.
7) You drag politics into it for no apparent reason. Really, I just can't do this justice without looking at it again:
I actually blame the parents (the Bush-haters) for breeding such a bunch of twats as LulzSec.
My god. It's like the hate is palpitate. If you think every ill of the world is all the democrats fault then really, I'd advise that you need to relax a little.
8) The grammar in your first paragraph is atrocious.
as to think that we just didn't understand the situation sufficiently clearly yet.
Wut? But I guess at this point I'm merely being nitpicky. The wrongness of your post on other counts is more than sufficient to earn you for negative karma. But seriously, you need to re-evaluate your life if these are your honest views. Or simply GTFO and leave us be.
If the games are written to make use of touch, control isn't a problem. Sure i can't play the same type of game with a touchscreen...
And there you have to root of the problem with touch screens. Touch sucks. There's no haptic feedback, it's sluggish, and not precise or accurate. It suffices for some things. It fails for anything that approaches real-time requirements.
If the buttons weren't so damn small, the builtin keypad would do much cover this ground. But sometimes you just can't get away from a real d-pad and real buttons. You know, like an arcade game. I mean, technically I can play SLASH'EM on my phone, but honestly without the numpad it's just a painful experience.
Also, repeat after me. "It is a childs toy". It is priced for children. It is targetting children. Possibly 20 year old children, but still.
Well alright, I'll chuck the first counter-volley.
I don't know how it is elsewhere, but at ISU they have those in the esteemed engineering department and the poor slobs with a liberal arts major in ComSci. Guess which one I was? In theory, the bottom rung was those with an MSI degree (or something along those lines) , who were destined for IT work, which is really a parrellel field, but we still looked down on them. Then there were those with in ComSci. Just enough to be dangerous with a compiler, but little clue what was really happening behind the scneses. Then we had Computer engineers, who actually knew how to do things, and in theory had an idea what the hardware was doing. Then came the Electrical Engineers, who walked like gods around campus. Mostly because there were two hard-ass professors that cackled as they got students to drop out, and they didn't leave too many around. Then came the engineering grad students, and at the very top were the ComSci phd students who couldn't code worth a damn but were somehow revered for their mysical in their trancendence of it all.
Usually you could tell the potential phd students from the doomed code-monkeys.
theorists fretted that the Internet was a place where anonymity thrived
Wait, why would they fret over that? Why is it presumed to be a bad thing?
Me thinks the whole article starts off from a really biased angle full of misconceptions.
Well it's good you can see and accept that it's broken. In a number of controversal issues, even admitting there is a problem seems to be beyond the grasp for some people.
But advice just kinda sucks.
1) Why wouldn't we compare systems? No, of course things are not exactly the same. But if you say that the universal health care that works over there won't work over here, you at least need to say WHY. So in what way are we different. Also, why don't we want to become like these countries if they have a better system?
2) I dunno man, I think everyone has the right to clean air and water. That doesn't mean subsidized bottled water stands in the desert, but it does mean that city water plants should maintain certain standards. And smog and pollution needs to be controlled. It's just kinda one of those basic things that established societies should do. Same way with health care. Nobody gets free robo-limbs and all the happy-pills they want, but if people get hurt, we should fix them up without putting them into soul-crushing debt
3) Ah. States rights. An old bastion for program people want to kill. Honestly, what's the difference? Sadly, the medical industry has far more political heft then the state governments. Possibly even more then the Federal. I see your point though. It'd be nice if more states proved that new systems could work.
4) You mean the watered-down flimsy piece that was castrated long before it got passed? The one that even staunch healthcare reform proponents dislike after it went through enough rounds of compromise. Yeah, I don't have a lot of faith in it either. The Obama administration pushed hard, but it wasn't quite enough to get anything meaningful through.
And I actually think you hit the nail on the head. The debate has been about healthcare insurance. But I don't give a damn about healthcare insurance, I care about actual healthcare. All insurance does is spread out possible costs across a pool of people and into the future. It doesn't lower the cost at all.
Re:30 Billion on Research?
on
IBM Turns 100
·
· Score: 1
heh, whoops. "Unemployment". Yeah, it hit 20% in the great depression. Unemployment is around 9% right now. So it's not as bad as the great depression. A better metric might be inflation-adjusted median income, but regardless, the econopocalypse was averted. YAY!
And it's good to hear you're not rallying against capitalism and that we both understand that it's a good thing. And it's nice to know other people out there aren't bigoted either. I'm fine with buying from China, but it would be nice if my country was economically competitive rather then just pissing away money sending profits offshore.
But the scary part is where you're advocating that America, the USA, we the people, including YOU AND ME, need to suffer through a economic shitstorm and another great depression. I'm not too clear on why, but I think you're justifying this with an idealistic view of capitalism or something.
No, the bailouts were arbitrary, unfair, and very wasteful. A lot of people need to be tarred and feathered. But it DOES appear to have done it's intended purpose and helped more then it hurt.
But no, pure, true, the-real-deal-democracy is simply one where everyone gets to vote on an issue.It could be a boat full of murderous pirates or a group of ignorant idiots.
The masses always don't go your way, but that's no reason to ditch democracy.
Re:30 Billion on Research?
on
IBM Turns 100
·
· Score: 1
Boy, sure is nice not starving out in the street facing soul crushing deflation as every but a select few become instantly broke.
Employment isn't 20%. Yeah, it worked.
Yes, capitalism kinda sucks. But not as hard as everything else that has been tried. Is America too big to fail?
Or another question, would you like all manufacturing to leave our shores? Do you want a foreigner to buy out what remains of our auto industry? You know how we have the rust belt? Do you want that to be complete?
Because if we let all this tumble to the ground it wouldn't be Americans picking up the pieces.
Re:30 Billion on Research?
on
IBM Turns 100
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Except that the $30 billion is just what they invested in researching and developing the system/360. Summary is wrong.
Also, most of the $700 Billion of that bailout were loans that have been paid back. There's still a ludicrous about of wasted money, like the $200 million that a bankers wife took, and then deposited in a bank, and reaped the interest! But in general, it was a short term loan to keep the economy moving. And it worked. Get over it.
there is a chance (however microscopic) of a breakthrough.
Well, he'd then have to wait between 2-10 years before that breakthrough was made into a viable drug/process/whatnot. This isn't the movies, there are not scientists with lab coats and test tubes running to ER room. You can't cure cancer by injecting hybrid-baby-juices directly into your spine. This stuff takes time and if there was a cure around the corner, we'd know.
It was an unlatched SCREEN DOOR with a missing hinge!
I wouldn't consider it hacking even by the media's definition. It's akin to asking the teller for someone else's information, and coming back 200,000 times to do it again.
Other then the act of repelling being a downward action, yeah, something like that.
Climb up, unbolt, push off. Or simply wait for a storm to knock it off for you.
It would be even simpler to open the container and take all the goodies below deck first. That way it's lighter for the storm to abscond with the evidence and you don't need a buddy with a boat.
It's theft, not rocket science.
Re:Not a terribly complex game, surprisingly
on
AI Takes On Pac-Man
·
· Score: 2
Huh. It look like a stalemate game goes to Pacman.
Re:Not a terribly complex game, surprisingly
on
AI Takes On Pac-Man
·
· Score: 1
Yes, against the ghosts' logic in the original game. But what if, and this is just a crazy idea, we pit the pacman-AI against the ghost-AI? It'd be some sort of competitive contest.
Also, isn't the ghost's side trivial? Pacman can't cover the entire board while invisible, so why not have two ghosts guard the remaining pellets? Once the 4 power-ups are gone, Pacman can't force his way past. It's a draw at best, and Pacman is stuck on lvl 1 with an upper limit to his score.
Slashdot Mirror
The self-insured don't pay for insurance, they simply have enough money to cover the costs of risk.
I guess I see what you're getting at, the deferred price of nuclear risk needs to be included and upfront. But this sort is the sort of thing that would break the bank even for the insurance company if it ever came to pass. (which would then get bailed). My advice is to simply have this sort of thing be a public utility. Deregulation of the power industry has been a nightmare and ultimately more expensive and unsafe.
Is he running for president again?
Man, remember all that environmentalist crap he kept harping about when he was campaigning in 2000?
Oh wait, he didn't.
You're an anonymous coward who is getting his facts wrong. Verifiably wrong. You're mis-representing history about global cooling, see the Wikipedia pages on it, specifically these two sections. And you're leaping at any shred of recent news and claiming it's the viewpoint of all of "them" (scientists, of course).
If you're aghast that something is considered insightful, it probably really is.
You are spouting blatantly anti-intellectual lies, very similar to Pol Pot and Mao.
The first 20 are always free, kiddies...
I don't think he's every really "turned". He's just moved on to advanced social engineering where through careful terminology and mystical ties he convinces suits to part with their money. All to hear his honeyed words of wisdom and to bestow upon them sage advice he gained through meditating in seclusion.
Errr. So yeah, "consultant" works pretty well I guess....
And do you think that a nuclear accident is NOT going to be cleaned up if a privatized nuclear powerplant runs without insurance?
For a sufficiently sized accident (anything that would leave "a mess to clean up"), no amount of insurance would save a corporation from oblivion.
Do you think that the government wouldn't step in, and would really just leave it to the free market?
Also note that 85% of EDF, the biggest french nuclear company, is owned by... wait for it.... the french government.
Wouldn't you think that the french government has enough capitol to self-insure? I mean, it's cheaper and more efficient. Why wouldn't they self-insure? You do, hopefully, understand what it means to self-insure, right?
You are, simply put, wrong. And on a number of levels and from a number of angles. Let me count:
1) It is, in fact, the "security guys" fault for not anticipating all the chaos that is possible in the world. That's their job. They are there to provide security, mitigate risks, and generally make people safe. And it is entirely due to their lack of diligence and their general incompetence. For the intrusions that I've gone over, LulSec did not make use of zero-day vulnerabilities or unknown mystical powers. They used well known vectors that competent "security guys" could have protected against. The only other positions you can share the blame with is their boss. And of course, LulSec themselves.
2) You hate lulsec, that's apparent. It's going beyond that though. You are so biased that you are making presumptions about them by calling them children. Calling them pricks and twats is simply name-calling, but the point where your demonizing influences the facts you know about them is self-deluding.
3) Pride. You elevate and praise yourself. It's good to speak well, and a little ego is good, but you're just kinda coming off as a douche.
4) You generalize that all teenagers are full of hate.
5) You also generalize that your entire generation is somehow above being this sort of "big prick", even after having just stated that your generation performed similar actions.
6) Sociopaths really do make the most productive CEOs. You have to remove yourself to a certain degree to be able to crush a persons livelihood. Not everyone can be a hatchet-man. Anyway, there have been studies and the signs of a good CEO are similar to the signs for sociopaths. But everyone has a little bit in them and sociology is a ludicrously soft science.
7) You drag politics into it for no apparent reason. Really, I just can't do this justice without looking at it again:
I actually blame the parents (the Bush-haters) for breeding such a bunch of twats as LulzSec.
My god. It's like the hate is palpitate. If you think every ill of the world is all the democrats fault then really, I'd advise that you need to relax a little.
8) The grammar in your first paragraph is atrocious.
as to think that we just didn't understand the situation sufficiently clearly yet.
Wut? But I guess at this point I'm merely being nitpicky. The wrongness of your post on other counts is more than sufficient to earn you for negative karma. But seriously, you need to re-evaluate your life if these are your honest views. Or simply GTFO and leave us be.
What good is insurance for a nuclear plant? How many lives does that save?
If the games are written to make use of touch, control isn't a problem. Sure i can't play the same type of game with a touchscreen...
And there you have to root of the problem with touch screens. Touch sucks. There's no haptic feedback, it's sluggish, and not precise or accurate. It suffices for some things. It fails for anything that approaches real-time requirements.
If the buttons weren't so damn small, the builtin keypad would do much cover this ground. But sometimes you just can't get away from a real d-pad and real buttons. You know, like an arcade game. I mean, technically I can play SLASH'EM on my phone, but honestly without the numpad it's just a painful experience.
Also, repeat after me. "It is a childs toy". It is priced for children. It is targetting children. Possibly 20 year old children, but still.
Well alright, I'll chuck the first counter-volley.
I don't know how it is elsewhere, but at ISU they have those in the esteemed engineering department and the poor slobs with a liberal arts major in ComSci. Guess which one I was? In theory, the bottom rung was those with an MSI degree (or something along those lines) , who were destined for IT work, which is really a parrellel field, but we still looked down on them. Then there were those with in ComSci. Just enough to be dangerous with a compiler, but little clue what was really happening behind the scneses. Then we had Computer engineers, who actually knew how to do things, and in theory had an idea what the hardware was doing. Then came the Electrical Engineers, who walked like gods around campus. Mostly because there were two hard-ass professors that cackled as they got students to drop out, and they didn't leave too many around. Then came the engineering grad students, and at the very top were the ComSci phd students who couldn't code worth a damn but were somehow revered for their mysical in their trancendence of it all.
Usually you could tell the potential phd students from the doomed code-monkeys.
theorists fretted that the Internet was a place where anonymity thrived
Wait, why would they fret over that? Why is it presumed to be a bad thing?
Me thinks the whole article starts off from a really biased angle full of misconceptions.
Well it's good you can see and accept that it's broken. In a number of controversal issues, even admitting there is a problem seems to be beyond the grasp for some people. But advice just kinda sucks.
1) Why wouldn't we compare systems? No, of course things are not exactly the same. But if you say that the universal health care that works over there won't work over here, you at least need to say WHY. So in what way are we different. Also, why don't we want to become like these countries if they have a better system?
2) I dunno man, I think everyone has the right to clean air and water. That doesn't mean subsidized bottled water stands in the desert, but it does mean that city water plants should maintain certain standards. And smog and pollution needs to be controlled. It's just kinda one of those basic things that established societies should do. Same way with health care. Nobody gets free robo-limbs and all the happy-pills they want, but if people get hurt, we should fix them up without putting them into soul-crushing debt
3) Ah. States rights. An old bastion for program people want to kill. Honestly, what's the difference? Sadly, the medical industry has far more political heft then the state governments. Possibly even more then the Federal. I see your point though. It'd be nice if more states proved that new systems could work.
4) You mean the watered-down flimsy piece that was castrated long before it got passed? The one that even staunch healthcare reform proponents dislike after it went through enough rounds of compromise. Yeah, I don't have a lot of faith in it either. The Obama administration pushed hard, but it wasn't quite enough to get anything meaningful through.
And I actually think you hit the nail on the head. The debate has been about healthcare insurance. But I don't give a damn about healthcare insurance, I care about actual healthcare. All insurance does is spread out possible costs across a pool of people and into the future. It doesn't lower the cost at all.
heh, whoops. "Unemployment". Yeah, it hit 20% in the great depression. Unemployment is around 9% right now. So it's not as bad as the great depression. A better metric might be inflation-adjusted median income, but regardless, the econopocalypse was averted. YAY!
And it's good to hear you're not rallying against capitalism and that we both understand that it's a good thing. And it's nice to know other people out there aren't bigoted either. I'm fine with buying from China, but it would be nice if my country was economically competitive rather then just pissing away money sending profits offshore.
But the scary part is where you're advocating that America, the USA, we the people, including YOU AND ME, need to suffer through a economic shitstorm and another great depression. I'm not too clear on why, but I think you're justifying this with an idealistic view of capitalism or something.
No, the bailouts were arbitrary, unfair, and very wasteful. A lot of people need to be tarred and feathered. But it DOES appear to have done it's intended purpose and helped more then it hurt.
China has managed to locate 82,707 dissidents trying to overturn their government.
Democracy, true democracy requires that each voter not only knows about the issue but votes for future, not the now AND not just for his own benefit.
And a TRUE Scotsman only eats HAGGIS!
But no, pure, true, the-real-deal-democracy is simply one where everyone gets to vote on an issue.It could be a boat full of murderous pirates or a group of ignorant idiots.
The masses always don't go your way, but that's no reason to ditch democracy.
Boy, sure is nice not starving out in the street facing soul crushing deflation as every but a select few become instantly broke.
Employment isn't 20%. Yeah, it worked.
Yes, capitalism kinda sucks. But not as hard as everything else that has been tried. Is America too big to fail?
Or another question, would you like all manufacturing to leave our shores? Do you want a foreigner to buy out what remains of our auto industry? You know how we have the rust belt? Do you want that to be complete?
Because if we let all this tumble to the ground it wouldn't be Americans picking up the pieces.
Except that the $30 billion is just what they invested in researching and developing the system/360. Summary is wrong.
Also, most of the $700 Billion of that bailout were loans that have been paid back. There's still a ludicrous about of wasted money, like the $200 million that a bankers wife took, and then deposited in a bank, and reaped the interest! But in general, it was a short term loan to keep the economy moving. And it worked. Get over it.
You sneaky little hacker! You owe the phone book company all sorts of money now.
there is a chance (however microscopic) of a breakthrough.
Well, he'd then have to wait between 2-10 years before that breakthrough was made into a viable drug/process/whatnot. This isn't the movies, there are not scientists with lab coats and test tubes running to ER room. You can't cure cancer by injecting hybrid-baby-juices directly into your spine. This stuff takes time and if there was a cure around the corner, we'd know.
'broke in through the front door'
It was an unlatched SCREEN DOOR with a missing hinge!
I wouldn't consider it hacking even by the media's definition. It's akin to asking the teller for someone else's information, and coming back 200,000 times to do it again.
Whiskey
Tango
Foxtrot
Other then the act of repelling being a downward action, yeah, something like that.
Climb up, unbolt, push off. Or simply wait for a storm to knock it off for you.
It would be even simpler to open the container and take all the goodies below deck first. That way it's lighter for the storm to abscond with the evidence and you don't need a buddy with a boat.
It's theft, not rocket science.
and some strange-looking footwear..."
Well they're right about half the populous.
Huh. It look like a stalemate game goes to Pacman.
Yes, against the ghosts' logic in the original game. But what if, and this is just a crazy idea, we pit the pacman-AI against the ghost-AI? It'd be some sort of competitive contest.
Also, isn't the ghost's side trivial? Pacman can't cover the entire board while invisible, so why not have two ghosts guard the remaining pellets? Once the 4 power-ups are gone, Pacman can't force his way past. It's a draw at best, and Pacman is stuck on lvl 1 with an upper limit to his score.