In most markets (reasonable markets...not the fantasy markets that are sucking right now) the cost of a home closely tracks the cost of an apartment of similar size.
The buy needs to pick and choose tradeoffs. If you don't want the hassle of the landscaping and other maintenance, then an apartment works out.
If you want space that is your own, then owning a home makes sense as long as you are willing to put up with the hassle. Many people (including me) enjoy the "hassle".
But my home is not an investment in my mind (even though it is currently worth more than $100,000 what I paid). In fact, I could not get an apartment of the same size with the same features as my home at anywhere near the same price. And I'm in a major metropolitan area.
And also while the documents were false, the story was essentially true and the only remarkable aspect of the story is that it was a story at all, everyone pretty much knew Bush got out of Vietnam by using his connections to get a cushy National Guard position, at a time when the Guard wasn't actually used for anything useful.
You obviously learned this from the false documents eh?
You can't argue with market realities. You can be smart. rebrand yourselves and build that brand in a respectable manner, or you can be a stupid 10 year old and throw a tantrum and still be associated with spammers and thieves.
George Colony who blogged that Apple would decline in the post-Jobs era.
Since day one of the Macintosh, or you might say day one of the IBM PC, people have been predicting the demise of Apple. With every new model and every new OS, legions of entrenched industry analysts stood up and said with certainty..."whoa, this may be the end of Apple".
I guess if they just keep saying that, one day it will be true and they can pat themselves on the back for being so prescient.
First, airliners have no business using joysticks. Flying hundreds of people around is no game. Flying these things is a Team Project so whatever can be done to keep everyone clued in to what's going on, it should be done.
Second, I ALWAYS feel better with a physical connection to the control surfaces...wire or hydraulics. I remember early Blackhawks flying by radio stations, turning upside down and crashing down in southern California. Trusting your life to a computer...which means trusting it with the computer programmers...I don't know.
Third, when the shit hits the fan, it is pitch black outside and you have no horizon and no sense of orientation, you have to be one disciplined mother fucker to keep a cool head. We're talking Chuck Yeager test pilot cool head.
Last, lights flashing, buzzers, etc. sometimes is worse than nothing at all. Browse literature about pilots in Vietnam and you will read many instances of pilots turning off alarms and such because the just confuse the situation. A little bit different situation, but just try getting something done with someone yelling in your ear you are doing it wrong again and again.
Even then, no matter. Planes have been pulled from swamps, bottoms of lakes, and worse and been restored to flying condition.
But this ROCKS! Anyone with even a little bit of interest in WWII aircraft knows this is a find of he century. The mechanical parts alone are worth millions.
You are doing the same as has been done before...ignoring the fact that there undoubtedly things that can be done to reduce the structural costs.
Costs are not skyrocketing not ONLY because people insist on MRIs for the running nose. They are going up because MRIs cost a lot of money to do. Why? who knows? You can guess...large capital costs, specialized training, special housing, etc. But still, it is a piece of equipment governed by the laws of GAAP and FDA regulation. Each of these regulatory systems can be tweaked to reduce costs of owning and operating an MRI scanner. Then there is the entire manufacturing side. Incentives to standardize components and manufacturing design considerations can further reduce costs.
Why is this not happening now? Because the Insurance and/or the Feds pay it as it is...why bother?
Every attempt at reform to date has sought merely to spread the cost, not reduce the cost.
What we need is an anal exam of all the players in the system. Full top to bottom audit, no information hidden. No relying on anecdotal stories or other gut feel explanations. That way, policy makers will KNOW what's driving the costs and design appropriate remedies.
Until that happens, any attempt to solve this will fail.
Yet it is clear that our morals are derived from a religious based belief system.
You are correct in that you could come up with a non-religious belief system and derive morals from that, but I don't see where that's happened. If you know of some, please tell me about it.
The researchers’ general approach was to test volunteers — in some cases, Canadian undergraduates, in others, as the paper explains, a “nationwide (though nonrepresentative) sample of American adults recruited online”. Both sets of volunteers constitute only a limited sample, as Gervais and Norenzayan acknowledge.
Now, assuming you know anything about Science and Research, you should be able to comment on the validity of the study because their sample is by their own words, "nonrepresentative". That right there renders is nothing more than a mere curiosity.
Morals are a set of "attitudes and practices that allow people to build functioning societies" (to quote the AC above) which are derived from a belief system.
I say this because it is obvious that there are many functioning societies today which have vastly different attitudes and practices than those in the West, many of which are in fact diametrically opposed to those in the West. An obvious example would be Honor Killings.
You can argue whether or not the predominate religion in those societies does in fact condone honor killings, but the reality is that the larger society condones them in practice, if not in law, which is evidence that their interpretation of their religion condones the practice.
In the West, this practice is illegal and almost universally condemned. Since by and large the legal code in the West is derived from English Common Law, which in turn is heavily influenced by Christianity, I think it is safe to say that this particular moral is in fact derived from a religious belief system.
So you have two belief systems that have produced two morals which are completely opposite each other.
Slashdot Mirror
Scientific Discussions on Slashdot:
"Yes it is!"
"NO, it isn't!"
"You are an idiot!"
"You are a paid shill!"
"I am the smartest man in the world"
Repeat until the post scrolls off the first page of Slashdot.
And despite your little rant, your basic problem is still that you want stuff for free.
and basic, direct democracy.
Now if that isn't the most stupid fucking idea ever.
In most markets (reasonable markets...not the fantasy markets that are sucking right now) the cost of a home closely tracks the cost of an apartment of similar size.
The buy needs to pick and choose tradeoffs. If you don't want the hassle of the landscaping and other maintenance, then an apartment works out.
If you want space that is your own, then owning a home makes sense as long as you are willing to put up with the hassle. Many people (including me) enjoy the "hassle".
But my home is not an investment in my mind (even though it is currently worth more than $100,000 what I paid). In fact, I could not get an apartment of the same size with the same features as my home at anywhere near the same price. And I'm in a major metropolitan area.
"Yes it is"
"No it isn't"
"You are an idiot"
"I am the smartest person in the world!"
Repeat until the next subject is posted.
And also while the documents were false, the story was essentially true and the only remarkable aspect of the story is that it was a story at all, everyone pretty much knew Bush got out of Vietnam by using his connections to get a cushy National Guard position, at a time when the Guard wasn't actually used for anything useful.
You obviously learned this from the false documents eh?
Do you even read the crap you write?
How colossally stupid do you have to be to believe a phone call just prior to an election telling you to vote on a different day or a different place?
You can't argue with market realities. You can be smart. rebrand yourselves and build that brand in a respectable manner, or you can be a stupid 10 year old and throw a tantrum and still be associated with spammers and thieves.
Your choice.
They used 'hack' in the populist security sense
WTF is that?
To 99% of the world, a hacker is someone who steals your password, your money, puts kiddie porn on your computer and publishes all your email.
Like it or not, folks doing legitimate security assessments or building custom gadgets, etc. would do well to come up with term other than "Hacker".
George Colony who blogged that Apple would decline in the post-Jobs era.
Since day one of the Macintosh, or you might say day one of the IBM PC, people have been predicting the demise of Apple. With every new model and every new OS, legions of entrenched industry analysts stood up and said with certainty..."whoa, this may be the end of Apple".
I guess if they just keep saying that, one day it will be true and they can pat themselves on the back for being so prescient.
For a private pilot license, restricted to VFR, then no.
For an airline pilot, the necessary certifications do include IFR (and a butt load of other stuff)
But in this case, the computers had no data and were unable to provide a horizon or attitude indicator if I understand TFA correctly.
I don't know if they had a good old fashion gyro artificial horizon on board.
Yeah...the new ones are. I'm talking the good old boys.
Pretty soon you won't be able to take a shit without a computer becoming involved somehow.
How'd that go again?...Do No Evil or something like that?
First, airliners have no business using joysticks. Flying hundreds of people around is no game. Flying these things is a Team Project so whatever can be done to keep everyone clued in to what's going on, it should be done.
Second, I ALWAYS feel better with a physical connection to the control surfaces...wire or hydraulics. I remember early Blackhawks flying by radio stations, turning upside down and crashing down in southern California. Trusting your life to a computer...which means trusting it with the computer programmers...I don't know.
Third, when the shit hits the fan, it is pitch black outside and you have no horizon and no sense of orientation, you have to be one disciplined mother fucker to keep a cool head. We're talking Chuck Yeager test pilot cool head.
Last, lights flashing, buzzers, etc. sometimes is worse than nothing at all. Browse literature about pilots in Vietnam and you will read many instances of pilots turning off alarms and such because the just confuse the situation. A little bit different situation, but just try getting something done with someone yelling in your ear you are doing it wrong again and again.
I'll take a good old Boeing any day.
+1 Funny
Even then, no matter. Planes have been pulled from swamps, bottoms of lakes, and worse and been restored to flying condition.
But this ROCKS! Anyone with even a little bit of interest in WWII aircraft knows this is a find of he century. The mechanical parts alone are worth millions.
You are doing the same as has been done before...ignoring the fact that there undoubtedly things that can be done to reduce the structural costs.
Costs are not skyrocketing not ONLY because people insist on MRIs for the running nose. They are going up because MRIs cost a lot of money to do. Why? who knows? You can guess...large capital costs, specialized training, special housing, etc. But still, it is a piece of equipment governed by the laws of GAAP and FDA regulation. Each of these regulatory systems can be tweaked to reduce costs of owning and operating an MRI scanner. Then there is the entire manufacturing side. Incentives to standardize components and manufacturing design considerations can further reduce costs.
Why is this not happening now? Because the Insurance and/or the Feds pay it as it is...why bother?
So I guess that Obama deleted the funding to hurt Scott Brown then?
Probably the distinct that hosts the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.
Odds that it is a Republican district are something south of zero.
Every attempt at reform to date has sought merely to spread the cost, not reduce the cost.
What we need is an anal exam of all the players in the system. Full top to bottom audit, no information hidden. No relying on anecdotal stories or other gut feel explanations. That way, policy makers will KNOW what's driving the costs and design appropriate remedies.
Until that happens, any attempt to solve this will fail.
Actually, There has been a non-religious based belief system, the various forms of atheistic Communism/Marxism.
And we all know how well that turned out...100 million plus dead.
Yet it is clear that our morals are derived from a religious based belief system.
You are correct in that you could come up with a non-religious belief system and derive morals from that, but I don't see where that's happened. If you know of some, please tell me about it.
And from the blog post on Nature:
The researchers’ general approach was to test volunteers — in some cases, Canadian undergraduates, in others, as the paper explains, a “nationwide (though nonrepresentative) sample of American adults recruited online”. Both sets of volunteers constitute only a limited sample, as Gervais and Norenzayan acknowledge.
Now, assuming you know anything about Science and Research, you should be able to comment on the validity of the study because their sample is by their own words, "nonrepresentative". That right there renders is nothing more than a mere curiosity.
Morals are a set of "attitudes and practices that allow people to build functioning societies" (to quote the AC above) which are derived from a belief system.
I say this because it is obvious that there are many functioning societies today which have vastly different attitudes and practices than those in the West, many of which are in fact diametrically opposed to those in the West. An obvious example would be Honor Killings.
You can argue whether or not the predominate religion in those societies does in fact condone honor killings, but the reality is that the larger society condones them in practice, if not in law, which is evidence that their interpretation of their religion condones the practice.
In the West, this practice is illegal and almost universally condemned. Since by and large the legal code in the West is derived from English Common Law, which in turn is heavily influenced by Christianity, I think it is safe to say that this particular moral is in fact derived from a religious belief system.
So you have two belief systems that have produced two morals which are completely opposite each other.
Where do you think morals were originally derived from?
And what belief system do you think binds these morals to the greater society?