They have made expensive, high end products that are tailored to luxury car owners.
Teslas are appealing cars, period. In fact the very first Tesla I saw was when we were driving and my GF pointing at one said "that's a very nice looking car, what brand is it?".
I stared at the logo for a few seconds equally admiring the car, trying to think what it was, before it hit me "It's a Tesla!".
This is me, your SO. Just a note to let you know that while you were posting this, I emptied your apartment using the spare key you gave me. I was not going to tell you that it was me who did it, but since you've explained to the rest of your fellow/.ers that you are an adult and you would simply "chalk it up to my own poor decision-making and consider it a lesson learned" I'm going ahead and telling you this.
Bad example: Fleming acquired that knowledge with no intent whatsoever of writing a book. Even if were to agree that Clancy did research, Fleming clearly did not.
To be sure I went and looked up a random sample of ten pages on Ian Fleming pages that discuss James Bond and research and none of them describe his experience in the secret service as research. This is in contrast to his knowledge of arms and Japan, which was acquired later for the purpose of writing his novels and is described as research.
It wasn't mean as a putdown. Just a matter of using the proper term; after all one wouldn't say that someone did a lot of research on their autobiography.
Clancy did a lot of research for all of his books, you have to give him props for that.
He was given unfettered access to the military and often his stories were really just fictionalizations with mild embellishments of actual events. This follows on a long tradition of artists (painters, writers, photographers) being given special access to war theaters. So nothing wrong with that, I just don't know if I would call this "research".
Taking a page of Romney who likely illegally shipped away around $100 million of his retirement funds to a tax haven in the Caribbean, yet complains about the hungry laid-off single mom who dares use food stamps and calls her a moocher.
From the perspective of an academic MSR is a fantastic place, in the same way as an all inclusive resort would be fantastic place from the perspective of a vacationing tourist.
From the perspective of the corporation MSR is suboptimal way to establish an R&D arm. This imperils the very existence of MSR since there is no direct or indirect revenue connection to the work in MSR. This much was clear from day one and perfectly consistent with the small stature of Nathan Myrhvold, a patent troll and poseur which managed to get Bill Gates ear for a little while.
The tax cuts then took a few years to have an effect on the economy, and then revenue went up.
As they do when the economy is growing, lower or higher taxes. You have yet to show that revenues increased above what they would have just by itself, and your graph shows subpar compared-to-trend growth.
(Hint: you won't be able to give any, reputable economists including those from the right now agree that we are on the left side of the Laffer curve, ie. lower taxes == lower revenues. There might be many reasons why we prefer lower taxes, but certainly not because they would cause increased revenues at the present level.)
So if you have a relatively homogenous population of Western Europeans,
Ah the myth of a homogenous society: 15% of the population in Switzerland is non-Western European, and nearly a quarter of Swiss residents are not from Switzerland. In Zurich fully half of the residents are immigrants.
In contrast, heterogeneous "melting pot" USA has only 14% of non-USA residents,
want to blame the Republicans but in reality it takes two tango and the Democrats don't want to negotiate
Sorry dude, but I can give you countless examples over the last four years in which the Democrats moved quite a bit to the right during legislative negotiations while the Republicans moved exactly nothing. In fact in some cases further to the right after the first Democratic entreaties, there is at least one case in which Obama adopted the Republican proposal to the letter only for the GOP to say no.
No, the original comment was correct. Federal revenue did go up... b
Are you and I looking at the same graph? I see a huge dip in the revenue side after Reagan takes over and then mild growth which is completely attributable to economic growth and somewhat below trend compared to all administrations.
Don't forget that those were also the years when the GOP took over Congress and restrained spending, a little bit, for a little while.
Again refer to your chart. The gap between spending and revenues in the Clinton years looks good from the get go. The GOP took over Congress only in his last term.
Reagan and Bush both proved that taxes are already too high. They both lowered taxes and the result was an increase in funding to the government.
Only in your imagination. The only time the deficit has gone down (in fact completely eliminated) was during the high tax years of Clinton. The economy did great and unemployment went to a record low.
Actually yes. Luis Alvarez, a Nobel Prize winning experimentalist argued extensively that large grants make experimentalists lazy. He joked that Michelson-Morley today would be done by launching antipodal satellites with expensive laser alignment hardware at the very low cost of $300 million.
In my book that is the one thing they got right. It is a cumbersome combination as it should be since you do not want to reboot your computer by accident.
It still irks me how easy is to accidentally shutdown your computer in windows when all you are trying to do is putting it to sleep through the menu.
In programming languages this is called "syntactic salt" and it is used to implement powerful primitives that should not be used lightly.
Right, because they have no semantics attached to them. When you write for (i=0;i<10;i++) { printf("%d",i); }
it just sits there, looking pretty, since "its only syntax". It has no meaning and nothing actually happens. Also so long as they are only syntax surely they are all the same.
Any other stupid statement you want to share with us today? ( I'm starting to understand Popular Science decision to ban comments.)
Slashdot Mirror
FTFY
They have made expensive, high end products that are tailored to luxury car owners.
Teslas are appealing cars, period. In fact the very first Tesla I saw was when we were driving and my GF pointing at one said "that's a very nice looking car, what brand is it?".
I stared at the logo for a few seconds equally admiring the car, trying to think what it was, before it hit me "It's a Tesla!".
"I want one" she said, "...and what is Tesla?"
Having a law that protects people from a very specific act causing humiliation
We already have at least one such law. It's called slander.
Hi honey,
This is me, your SO. Just a note to let you know that while you were posting this, I emptied your apartment using the spare key you gave me. I was not going to tell you that it was me who did it, but since you've explained to the rest of your fellow /.ers that you are an adult and you would simply "chalk it up to my own poor decision-making and consider it a lesson learned" I'm going ahead and telling you this.
Cheerio
Your sweet honey buns
Fleming wasn't in the secret service, he was in Naval Intelligence during the second world war.
You are correct, but this is a nitpick that changes nothing of substance in my argument.
Also, 5 minutes on Wikipedia would have shown that Ian Fleming took inspiration for James Bond from his time in Naval Intelligence.
Thanks, captain obvious. Any other deep insights you uncovered after "five minutes in wikipedia"?
Bad example: Fleming acquired that knowledge with no intent whatsoever of writing a book. Even if were to agree that Clancy did research, Fleming clearly did not.
To be sure I went and looked up a random sample of ten pages on Ian Fleming pages that discuss James Bond and research and none of them describe his experience in the secret service as research. This is in contrast to his knowledge of arms and Japan, which was acquired later for the purpose of writing his novels and is described as research.
It wasn't mean as a putdown. Just a matter of using the proper term; after all one wouldn't say that someone did a lot of research on their autobiography.
(Yeah, I know, I'm being a pedant).
The headline is a bit misleading.
To paraphrase Jack Nicholson in a Few Good Men: "are there any other kind?"
Clancy did a lot of research for all of his books, you have to give him props for that.
He was given unfettered access to the military and often his stories were really just fictionalizations with mild embellishments of actual events. This follows on a long tradition of artists (painters, writers, photographers) being given special access to war theaters. So nothing wrong with that, I just don't know if I would call this "research".
Taking a page of Romney who likely illegally shipped away around $100 million of his retirement funds to a tax haven in the Caribbean, yet complains about the hungry laid-off single mom who dares use food stamps and calls her a moocher.
I think you are mistaken. Here's a 1992 draft of HTML without IMG support:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-talk/1992MayJun/0020.html
Here's another in November 1992 still without IMG tags:
http://www.w3.org/History/19921103-hypertext/hypertext/WWW/MarkUp/Tags.html
By early 1993 NCSA was working on Mosaic and it now included IMG support.
All they will accomplish is remind people how utterly crappy the web was until Mosaic introduced the IMG tag.
From the perspective of an academic MSR is a fantastic place, in the same way as an all inclusive resort would be fantastic place from the perspective of a vacationing tourist.
From the perspective of the corporation MSR is suboptimal way to establish an R&D arm. This imperils the very existence of MSR since there is no direct or indirect revenue connection to the work in MSR. This much was clear from day one and perfectly consistent with the small stature of Nathan Myrhvold, a patent troll and poseur which managed to get Bill Gates ear for a little while.
The tax cuts then took a few years to have an effect on the economy, and then revenue went up.
As they do when the economy is growing, lower or higher taxes. You have yet to show that revenues increased above what they would have just by itself, and your graph shows subpar compared-to-trend growth.
(Hint: you won't be able to give any, reputable economists including those from the right now agree that we are on the left side of the Laffer curve, ie. lower taxes == lower revenues. There might be many reasons why we prefer lower taxes, but certainly not because they would cause increased revenues at the present level.)
So if you have a relatively homogenous population of Western Europeans,
Ah the myth of a homogenous society: 15% of the population in Switzerland is non-Western European, and nearly a quarter of Swiss residents are not from Switzerland. In Zurich fully half of the residents are immigrants.
In contrast, heterogeneous "melting pot" USA has only 14% of non-USA residents,
Nope, in fact the Bush tax cuts were passed based on projections of continued surpluses as far as the eye could see. Look it up.
want to blame the Republicans but in reality it takes two tango and the Democrats don't want to negotiate
Sorry dude, but I can give you countless examples over the last four years in which the Democrats moved quite a bit to the right during legislative negotiations while the Republicans moved exactly nothing. In fact in some cases further to the right after the first Democratic entreaties, there is at least one case in which Obama adopted the Republican proposal to the letter only for the GOP to say no.
No, the original comment was correct. Federal revenue did go up... b
Are you and I looking at the same graph? I see a huge dip in the revenue side after Reagan takes over and then mild growth which is completely attributable to economic growth and somewhat below trend compared to all administrations.
Don't forget that those were also the years when the GOP took over Congress and restrained spending, a little bit, for a little while.
Again refer to your chart. The gap between spending and revenues in the Clinton years looks good from the get go. The GOP took over Congress only in his last term.
Same thing, total take either in dollars or as %GDP was higher during Clinton.
Reagan and Bush both proved that taxes are already too high. They both lowered taxes and the result was an increase in funding to the government.
Only in your imagination. The only time the deficit has gone down (in fact completely eliminated) was during the high tax years of Clinton. The economy did great and unemployment went to a record low.
Actually yes. Luis Alvarez, a Nobel Prize winning experimentalist argued extensively that large grants make experimentalists lazy. He joked that Michelson-Morley today would be done by launching antipodal satellites with expensive laser alignment hardware at the very low cost of $300 million.
Make up your mind. Either it is useful in which near every one will apt-get the extension, or it isn't in which case it won't be installed.
Your reality in which is useful yet people don't install it is absurd.
In my book that is the one thing they got right. It is a cumbersome combination as it should be since you do not want to reboot your computer by accident.
It still irks me how easy is to accidentally shutdown your computer in windows when all you are trying to do is putting it to sleep through the menu.
In programming languages this is called "syntactic salt" and it is used to implement powerful primitives that should not be used lightly.
Woosh.
I used that example to show that a language is syntax and semantics. I could easily define SlashdotFortran in which
FOR i = 0 TO 9
PRINT i
reformats the hard drive. And what would be the difference between my SlashdotFortran example and yours? Semantics.
Actually once you remove the compiler (which commonly contains the parser as well ) all is left is ASCII, your point being?
Languages are just Syntax - get over it.
Right, because they have no semantics attached to them. When you write
for (i=0;i<10;i++)
{ printf("%d",i); }
it just sits there, looking pretty, since "its only syntax". It has no meaning and nothing actually happens. Also so long as they are only syntax surely they are all the same.
Any other stupid statement you want to share with us today? ( I'm starting to understand Popular Science decision to ban comments.)