Nope. One in ten in the Roman army were killed. That's decimation. People misuse it all the time.
No. It is you who are clinging to a deprecated definition. Language evolves over time, and the etymology of a word may be such that the definition of a word is based on a historical definition but no longer means the exact same thing.
In the Oxford English dictionary, the 1st definition is "1. kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of," while the 2nd definition notes that it is historical, "2. historical kill one in every ten of (a group of people, originally a mutinous Roman legion) as a punishment for the whole group."
In Roman times, "addicts" were broke people given as slaved to the people they owed money too. "Nervous" meant a person who was sinewy and vigorous. "Nice" meant ignorant. So you see, just because a word is based on a word that meant something thousands of years ago it doesn't mean it means the same thing today.
Also, when a word has multiple definitions, we have this thing most of us learned about in elementary school called "context." When you read the headline, did you understand which definition it meant? If for some reason you honestly thought it meant 1 out of 10 stinkbugs died, did you understand it after reading the article? Are you being obstinate or nice?
Conversely, taking Amtrak any appreciable distance is going to be painful: painfully long and painfully expensive (unless you don't mind spending days sleeping in your chair).
Maybe that's true, but for short distances it's actually faster. Between Portland and Seattle, for example, it's faster door-to-door to take the train than to get to the airport early, wait in the check-in line (their new computer terminals really don't make it any faster), go through security, board, etc etc. The train is more pleasant and comfortable, and best of all you don't have to deal with the TSA's stupid rules.
Oh, new conspiracy thought: Is it possible that the existence of the TSA's ridiculous rules is a result of lobbying by Amtrak, to make it less pleasant to fly than to take the train?
The spinkler system at my office has not put out a single fire. My smoke detector has not once detected smoke. My life insurance has not once payed out. The airbag in your car has not once inflated and safed your life. My helmet has not once protected my head from a crash.
Your analogy is fundamentally broken enough to be irrelevant. Your analogy would hold true if you were talking about why TSA was at my airport if it was known that terrorists were continually trying to attack other airports, and proven that the TSA's measures have helped prevent terrorists attacks at other airports and so might help prevent one at my airport. Sprinklers, smoke detectors, life insurance, airbags, and helmets have been proven helpful in real cases, which is why we continue to use them. These idiotic rules the TSA has have not.
who is the shareholder? Your elderly mom, YOU, etc. If you have a savings plan you own shares. Also investment money is needed to expand or go into more markets. They only way to do that is to have great accounting books.
Which is exactly why the parent says that bonuses should be tied to company performance. If a company is driven into the ground and share prices drop, then the CEO shouldn't get a bonus. If, on the other hand, the company grows and share prices go up, then it makes sense to give the CEO a bonus proportional to their success.
The reason you are let go is because you fix some computers. The CEO on the otherhand changes the lives of milllions of people.
And the job of the computer fixer is to fix computers. If he sucks at it then he gets fired. The CEO, on the other hand, has the job of improving/growing the company. If he sucks at it, he still gets a massive bonus. That's what doesn't make sense. Yeah, the CEO of some companies can change the lives of millions of people. If they change those lives for the better, they should get a bonus. If they change those lives for the worse, they shouldn't get a bonus.
You want that cash and job security then you ought to be a better worker and provide greater value.
Oh, wait. So you agree, if the performance of the CEO does not provide greater value to a company, then they shouldn't get a bonus and they should be fired?
It took Zuckerberg 10 years before he became very wealthy.
That's an exception to the norm.
The free market takes care of everything if you just bud out and not interfere.
Once a company goes public, they are opting out of the free market. They are accepting money from the public. If a company wants to stay private and privately accept money from private investors, that's a whole different ballgame. But we're talking about public companies here for the most part. If the "too big to fail" companies get bailouts from the government to prevent the entire economy from collapsing, how is that a free market? Why should the C*Os of those companies get to keep their jobs, much less get massive bonuses? Even without bailouts, when a company decides to go public they are opting out of the free market and agreeing to play by a particular set of rules that are supposed to benefit the public whose money pays their salaries and bonuses. The problem is the system has become corrupted to the point where they can screw over their money source and still get massive bonuses and keep their salaries.
The Marine Corp's budget is $29B per year. An extra $10M would be an increase of 0.03%. The Department of Defense budget, minus the money spent on individual military branches, is $190B. $10M is 0.005% of that.
Another figure to put in in perspective: 5% of the cost of a single F-35 or F-22.
Cyborg is a being with both human and mechanical parts; however that doesn't mean the mechanical parts need to be inside you.
From the Oxford English Dictionary: cyborg/sbôrg/ noun. a fictional or hypothetical person whose physical abilities are extended beyond normal human limitations by mechanical elements built into the body.
Merriam-Webster: a person whose body contains mechanical or electrical devices and whose abilities are greater than the abilities of normal humans.
Dunno about you, but my phone, laptop, tv, etc do not fall under Oxford's built into my body nor Merriam-Webster's contained in my body.
Well, if she was properly served, then she definitely should have appeared. If she was not properly served, than the case should be thrown out.
Then shouldn't the charge be "Failure to Appear?" Instead, the arrest report linked to in the article says the charge is "Failure to Return Rented Video Cassette."
A little perspective: Exxon Mobil profits for a single year: $44.88 billion F-22 Program cost: $66.7 Billion F-35 Program cost: $857 Billion ("projected," according to wikipedia, but you get the idea) Halliburton profits for a single year: $3 billion Cost of a single B-2 bomber: $737 million.
I dunno about that. A good label curates a catalog that I can use to discover "new" music, can help with setting up shows, and what not. Distributors, now that's a different story.
In other words, the only real purpose most labels serve is as a marketing firm. The big thing with record companies is that the artist only gets something like 10%, and I think that's wholesale, not retail.
No, it wasn't. It was designed to make money for certain contractors, who can then turn a little bit of it around to campaign contributions. The quality of the design only matters insofar as they can squeeze as much money as possible out of it.
This. The obvious truth is that each party wants the programs they don't like to vanish, and the programs they do like to expand.
Only purist libertarians honestly want the whole government small. Regardless of their rhetoric, the actions of every other party show they want the government to be ginormous, domineering, and bent on shoving their agenda down the world's throat.
The parties don't give a crap about how big the government itself is. They care about power. That means they care about getting their people elected so that they have power. That means they care about their campaign contributions so that the party's people can get elected so that the party has power. That means they care about giving money in the form of government contracts to their compaign contributors so that they party's people can get elected so that the party has power. That also means convoluted regulations that benefit the campaign contributors, not the people, so that they party's people can get elected so that the party has power.
Actually the builder offers a guarantee that the wall will be built to industry standards.
Actually, if you want to follow the analogy, the employee is not analogous to the builder. The employee is analogous to the builder's employee, while the builder is analogous to the company, and the homeowner is analogous to the company's customer. The builder would be paying his employee by the hour. If the employee messed up, whether it was a reasonable mistake or even if he was negligent, when the employee fixes his mistake he'd still be on the clock, getting paid by the builder. Of course, the builder could fire the employee and hire another employee to fix it, but he can't make the first employee fix it off the clock.
Just comparing the temperatures in the biggest city which happens to be located near the actual mountains which host the games is completely stupid!
Just comparing the temperatures of the city, no, but did your city have to spend $51 Billion (even adjusted for inflation) to make the location viable?
4.4 billion for 4GW is $1100/KW, which is about comparable to simple cycle natural gas turbines, IIRC.
But NG is peaking and dispatchable as hell, unlike solar.
That's a good comparison, but it's not that simple. With each one you have to pay maintenance and operating costs, and with NG that includes the gas itself. With solar, when comparing capacity, the sun doesn't shine 24hrs/day and presumably the stated capacity is maximum and not average. So to compare costs, what's the total cost per GWh over X years?
You can also take a mold from a prototype 'plug", rather than CNCing a mold.
Good point, making a mold from a plug is common too. My first sentence should have said, "There are two ways carbon fiber is generally done using a CNC..." I hadn't intended to say that using a CNC was the only common way it's done, oops.
Come on, at least read the summary if you're not going to read TFA. I wouldn't normally be defending Oracle, and Oracle may do a lot of evil things regarding IP (like trying to assert copyright on an API), but this isn't one of them. They're going after them for pirating their software and making money as a result. This isn't some kid or hobbyist pirating something, it's a for-profit company pirating software that's owned by Oracle, and not even just for use on their own computers but for clients that they're making money off of.
Of course, their motivation for enforcing their IP is probably to get rid of the competition, but they're not trying to assert that competition is illegal. It's simple - if you're going to make money off of supporting software, don't pirate that software for your customers. If you think that software being non-FOSS is evil and you want to hold to that principle like a lot of the people who are going to whine about this, then don't try make money off of supporting that software.
"The only real method available is CNC machining, an expensive and difficult process that requires laying pieces by hand."
CNC means Computer Numerical Controlled, which isn't remotely similar to laying out sheets of resin-bonded carbon fiber by hand. Or are they forming blocks of fiber made out of a lot of bonded sheets, and then CNC-milling them into shapes? That seems like a pointless waste. Very confusing sentence, there.
There are two ways carbon fiber is generally done...you can CNC a part (usually out of foam, sometimes wood) and then wrap it in carbon fiber, or for repeatability you can CNC a mold and hand lay the carbon fiber in that. Yes, the sentence was poorly written for the layperson, but if you've worked with composites before you'd know what it means.
This will just be another example of how de-fanged Congress has become. By all rights clapper should be convicted of perjury and thrown in prison. He lied under oath. Period.
Just can't let the 'I hate Christians' thing go can you?
It's not a "I hate Christians" thing. It's a "I hate dishonesty" thing. If you're teaching something in a class that claims to be a science class, then you are supposed to be teaching the scientific method (the core of "science") and things that have been learned and proven using the scientific method. Instead, if you are teaching creationism, you are not only teaching something that does not stand up to the scientific method, but you are also teaching that things that have been very well proven using the scientific method are wrong. This is dishonest. If you want to teach creationism or any other aspect of any other religion, that's great, just be sure to label the class "theology" and not something related to science.
How would you feel if, instead of something that Christians came up with, they were teaching Scientology as if it were fact? Do you think teaching that humans on earth came from the evil lord Xenu belongs in a science class? Regardless of which aspects of which religions are right or wrong, it belongs in a theology class, not a science class. Or, to make another analogy, should a school be teaching about the rise and fall of the Roman Empire in a math class? Regardless of whether what they're teaching is right or wrong, that topic belongs in a history class, not a math class.
There is a term we have in PM Biz called "Wishful Thinking". It is where a project is way over budget, horribly late and there's no end in sight. The "answer" is to throw money and people at the problem.
You're answering the wrong problem. In the case of your example, your company loses money if it goes over budget and over time so it is in your company's best interest to solve the problem. In the case of the contractors botching the F-35, they make more money the more over budget they go...because the cost overruns get paid for by the government, the contractor pockets a handsome profit, and they have that much more money to give to political campaigns so they can get the next contract, go way over budget...rinse and repeat.
This has nothing to do with same-sex couples. This could have happened with a differnt-sex couple or a single person.
But it didn't, did it? How many infertile men are out there, whose female partner gets pregnant through artificial insemination? The sperm donor doesn't pay child support because of contracts. In this case, the judge is saying that the contract isn't valid because the insemination wasn't carried out by a physician, even though the law doesn't require that. So in reality, their contract is no different than an other artificial insemination contract except that it wasn't carried out by a doctor, which doesn't actually matter in the law. Except it supposedly matters to the Kansas Department for Children and Families and to the judge.
So, either the Kansas Department for Children and Families and the judge all have their heads completely up their asses (which is doubtful, because bureacratic cranial-rectal syndrome generallly results in inaction, not over-action) or the department and the judge are being discriminatory and using a non-existent law as an excuse.
Slashdot Mirror
Some of the company's other projects look just as unrealistic.
FTFY.
Nope. One in ten in the Roman army were killed. That's decimation. People misuse it all the time.
No. It is you who are clinging to a deprecated definition. Language evolves over time, and the etymology of a word may be such that the definition of a word is based on a historical definition but no longer means the exact same thing.
In the Oxford English dictionary, the 1st definition is "1. kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of," while the 2nd definition notes that it is historical, "2. historical kill one in every ten of (a group of people, originally a mutinous Roman legion) as a punishment for the whole group."
In Roman times, "addicts" were broke people given as slaved to the people they owed money too. "Nervous" meant a person who was sinewy and vigorous. "Nice" meant ignorant. So you see, just because a word is based on a word that meant something thousands of years ago it doesn't mean it means the same thing today.
Also, when a word has multiple definitions, we have this thing most of us learned about in elementary school called "context." When you read the headline, did you understand which definition it meant? If for some reason you honestly thought it meant 1 out of 10 stinkbugs died, did you understand it after reading the article? Are you being obstinate or nice?
Conversely, taking Amtrak any appreciable distance is going to be painful: painfully long and painfully expensive (unless you don't mind spending days sleeping in your chair).
Maybe that's true, but for short distances it's actually faster. Between Portland and Seattle, for example, it's faster door-to-door to take the train than to get to the airport early, wait in the check-in line (their new computer terminals really don't make it any faster), go through security, board, etc etc. The train is more pleasant and comfortable, and best of all you don't have to deal with the TSA's stupid rules.
Oh, new conspiracy thought: Is it possible that the existence of the TSA's ridiculous rules is a result of lobbying by Amtrak, to make it less pleasant to fly than to take the train?
The spinkler system at my office has not put out a single fire. My smoke detector has not once detected smoke. My life insurance has not once payed out. The airbag in your car has not once inflated and safed your life. My helmet has not once protected my head from a crash.
Your analogy is fundamentally broken enough to be irrelevant. Your analogy would hold true if you were talking about why TSA was at my airport if it was known that terrorists were continually trying to attack other airports, and proven that the TSA's measures have helped prevent terrorists attacks at other airports and so might help prevent one at my airport. Sprinklers, smoke detectors, life insurance, airbags, and helmets have been proven helpful in real cases, which is why we continue to use them. These idiotic rules the TSA has have not.
who is the shareholder? Your elderly mom, YOU, etc. If you have a savings plan you own shares. Also investment money is needed to expand or go into more markets. They only way to do that is to have great accounting books.
Which is exactly why the parent says that bonuses should be tied to company performance. If a company is driven into the ground and share prices drop, then the CEO shouldn't get a bonus. If, on the other hand, the company grows and share prices go up, then it makes sense to give the CEO a bonus proportional to their success.
The reason you are let go is because you fix some computers. The CEO on the otherhand changes the lives of milllions of people.
And the job of the computer fixer is to fix computers. If he sucks at it then he gets fired. The CEO, on the other hand, has the job of improving/growing the company. If he sucks at it, he still gets a massive bonus. That's what doesn't make sense. Yeah, the CEO of some companies can change the lives of millions of people. If they change those lives for the better, they should get a bonus. If they change those lives for the worse, they shouldn't get a bonus.
You want that cash and job security then you ought to be a better worker and provide greater value.
Oh, wait. So you agree, if the performance of the CEO does not provide greater value to a company, then they shouldn't get a bonus and they should be fired?
It took Zuckerberg 10 years before he became very wealthy.
That's an exception to the norm.
The free market takes care of everything if you just bud out and not interfere.
Once a company goes public, they are opting out of the free market. They are accepting money from the public. If a company wants to stay private and privately accept money from private investors, that's a whole different ballgame. But we're talking about public companies here for the most part. If the "too big to fail" companies get bailouts from the government to prevent the entire economy from collapsing, how is that a free market? Why should the C*Os of those companies get to keep their jobs, much less get massive bonuses? Even without bailouts, when a company decides to go public they are opting out of the free market and agreeing to play by a particular set of rules that are supposed to benefit the public whose money pays their salaries and bonuses. The problem is the system has become corrupted to the point where they can screw over their money source and still get massive bonuses and keep their salaries.
The Marine Corp's budget is $29B per year. An extra $10M would be an increase of 0.03%. The Department of Defense budget, minus the money spent on individual military branches, is $190B. $10M is 0.005% of that.
Another figure to put in in perspective: 5% of the cost of a single F-35 or F-22.
Cyborg is a being with both human and mechanical parts; however that doesn't mean the mechanical parts need to be inside you.
From the Oxford English Dictionary: cyborg /sbôrg/ noun. a fictional or hypothetical person whose physical abilities are extended beyond normal human limitations by mechanical elements built into the body.
Merriam-Webster: a person whose body contains mechanical or electrical devices and whose abilities are greater than the abilities of normal humans.
Dunno about you, but my phone, laptop, tv, etc do not fall under Oxford's built into my body nor Merriam-Webster's contained in my body.
We rely on screens and mobile devices to extend our powers beyond the biological.
Which is exactly why we're not cyborgs.
Blockbuster ended late fees and just auto billed you the full cost.
And Blockbuster went bankrupt.
Well, if she was properly served, then she definitely should have appeared. If she was not properly served, than the case should be thrown out.
Then shouldn't the charge be "Failure to Appear?" Instead, the arrest report linked to in the article says the charge is "Failure to Return Rented Video Cassette."
A little perspective:
Exxon Mobil profits for a single year: $44.88 billion
F-22 Program cost: $66.7 Billion
F-35 Program cost: $857 Billion ("projected," according to wikipedia, but you get the idea)
Halliburton profits for a single year: $3 billion
Cost of a single B-2 bomber: $737 million.
I dunno about that. A good label curates a catalog that I can use to discover "new" music, can help with setting up shows, and what not. Distributors, now that's a different story.
In other words, the only real purpose most labels serve is as a marketing firm. The big thing with record companies is that the artist only gets something like 10%, and I think that's wholesale, not retail.
It was designed to be a terrible airplane
No, it wasn't. It was designed to make money for certain contractors, who can then turn a little bit of it around to campaign contributions. The quality of the design only matters insofar as they can squeeze as much money as possible out of it.
Q: Do car dealerships add value?
A: I have to go ask my manager.
This. The obvious truth is that each party wants the programs they don't like to vanish, and the programs they do like to expand.
Only purist libertarians honestly want the whole government small. Regardless of their rhetoric, the actions of every other party show they want the government to be ginormous, domineering, and bent on shoving their agenda down the world's throat.
The parties don't give a crap about how big the government itself is. They care about power. That means they care about getting their people elected so that they have power. That means they care about their campaign contributions so that the party's people can get elected so that the party has power. That means they care about giving money in the form of government contracts to their compaign contributors so that they party's people can get elected so that the party has power. That also means convoluted regulations that benefit the campaign contributors, not the people, so that they party's people can get elected so that the party has power.
Actually the builder offers a guarantee that the wall will be built to industry standards.
Actually, if you want to follow the analogy, the employee is not analogous to the builder. The employee is analogous to the builder's employee, while the builder is analogous to the company, and the homeowner is analogous to the company's customer. The builder would be paying his employee by the hour. If the employee messed up, whether it was a reasonable mistake or even if he was negligent, when the employee fixes his mistake he'd still be on the clock, getting paid by the builder. Of course, the builder could fire the employee and hire another employee to fix it, but he can't make the first employee fix it off the clock.
Just comparing the temperatures in the biggest city which happens to be located near the actual mountains which host the games is completely stupid!
Just comparing the temperatures of the city, no, but did your city have to spend $51 Billion (even adjusted for inflation) to make the location viable?
4.4 billion for 4GW is $1100/KW, which is about comparable to simple cycle natural gas turbines, IIRC.
But NG is peaking and dispatchable as hell, unlike solar.
That's a good comparison, but it's not that simple. With each one you have to pay maintenance and operating costs, and with NG that includes the gas itself. With solar, when comparing capacity, the sun doesn't shine 24hrs/day and presumably the stated capacity is maximum and not average. So to compare costs, what's the total cost per GWh over X years?
You can also take a mold from a prototype 'plug", rather than CNCing a mold.
Good point, making a mold from a plug is common too. My first sentence should have said, "There are two ways carbon fiber is generally done using a CNC..." I hadn't intended to say that using a CNC was the only common way it's done, oops.
Come on, at least read the summary if you're not going to read TFA. I wouldn't normally be defending Oracle, and Oracle may do a lot of evil things regarding IP (like trying to assert copyright on an API), but this isn't one of them. They're going after them for pirating their software and making money as a result. This isn't some kid or hobbyist pirating something, it's a for-profit company pirating software that's owned by Oracle, and not even just for use on their own computers but for clients that they're making money off of.
Of course, their motivation for enforcing their IP is probably to get rid of the competition, but they're not trying to assert that competition is illegal. It's simple - if you're going to make money off of supporting software, don't pirate that software for your customers. If you think that software being non-FOSS is evil and you want to hold to that principle like a lot of the people who are going to whine about this, then don't try make money off of supporting that software.
"The only real method available is CNC machining, an expensive and difficult process that requires laying pieces by hand."
CNC means Computer Numerical Controlled, which isn't remotely similar to laying out sheets of resin-bonded carbon fiber by hand. Or are they forming blocks of fiber made out of a lot of bonded sheets, and then CNC-milling them into shapes? That seems like a pointless waste. Very confusing sentence, there.
There are two ways carbon fiber is generally done...you can CNC a part (usually out of foam, sometimes wood) and then wrap it in carbon fiber, or for repeatability you can CNC a mold and hand lay the carbon fiber in that. Yes, the sentence was poorly written for the layperson, but if you've worked with composites before you'd know what it means.
This will just be another example of how de-fanged Congress has become. By all rights clapper should be convicted of perjury and thrown in prison. He lied under oath. Period.
FTFY
Just can't let the 'I hate Christians' thing go can you?
It's not a "I hate Christians" thing. It's a "I hate dishonesty" thing. If you're teaching something in a class that claims to be a science class, then you are supposed to be teaching the scientific method (the core of "science") and things that have been learned and proven using the scientific method. Instead, if you are teaching creationism, you are not only teaching something that does not stand up to the scientific method, but you are also teaching that things that have been very well proven using the scientific method are wrong. This is dishonest. If you want to teach creationism or any other aspect of any other religion, that's great, just be sure to label the class "theology" and not something related to science.
How would you feel if, instead of something that Christians came up with, they were teaching Scientology as if it were fact? Do you think teaching that humans on earth came from the evil lord Xenu belongs in a science class? Regardless of which aspects of which religions are right or wrong, it belongs in a theology class, not a science class. Or, to make another analogy, should a school be teaching about the rise and fall of the Roman Empire in a math class? Regardless of whether what they're teaching is right or wrong, that topic belongs in a history class, not a math class.
There is a term we have in PM Biz called "Wishful Thinking". It is where a project is way over budget, horribly late and there's no end in sight. The "answer" is to throw money and people at the problem.
You're answering the wrong problem. In the case of your example, your company loses money if it goes over budget and over time so it is in your company's best interest to solve the problem. In the case of the contractors botching the F-35, they make more money the more over budget they go...because the cost overruns get paid for by the government, the contractor pockets a handsome profit, and they have that much more money to give to political campaigns so they can get the next contract, go way over budget...rinse and repeat.
This has nothing to do with same-sex couples. This could have happened with a differnt-sex couple or a single person.
But it didn't, did it? How many infertile men are out there, whose female partner gets pregnant through artificial insemination? The sperm donor doesn't pay child support because of contracts. In this case, the judge is saying that the contract isn't valid because the insemination wasn't carried out by a physician, even though the law doesn't require that. So in reality, their contract is no different than an other artificial insemination contract except that it wasn't carried out by a doctor, which doesn't actually matter in the law. Except it supposedly matters to the Kansas Department for Children and Families and to the judge.
So, either the Kansas Department for Children and Families and the judge all have their heads completely up their asses (which is doubtful, because bureacratic cranial-rectal syndrome generallly results in inaction, not over-action) or the department and the judge are being discriminatory and using a non-existent law as an excuse.