The ability for citizens to mail letters and rely on their ability to reach the destination is still hugely important, and one that *should* be subsidized by our tax dollars.
Do you think that Americans derive more benefit from sending and receiving packages than they're willing to pay? Why do you suppose that is?
Overweight people could be mildly, but unequivocally, taxed via increased medical insurance payments, because large amounts of food mean large amount of energy. Besides additional medical care for overweight people also takes a lot of energy.
I'm pretty sure this part happens already.
Basically, this whole post says that the rest of the world should be like Europe. Clearly, Europe is getting some of those things right relative to the US. But with respect to cars and living space, aren't the Chinese and Africans more conservative? Why exactly is Europe the gold standard of consumption level?
Great post. Let me add an analogy. If the government starts recording video of activities in my bedroom, wearing masks isn't the best way to protect privacy.
I see the problem with the first sentence, but in the second, "only support" and "support only" both make sense.
It makes sense because the intended meaning is so much more likely than the stated meaning. "Only" modifies H.264 (H.264 but not other codecs). So the most expressive position for the word "only" is before H.264.
The other word order implies that "only" modifies "support" (support but not other actions, e.g., "invent"). I agree that the meaning in this sentence can be inferred, but the word order makes the readers' brains work harder than they should have to.
Consider this scenario:
Sitting in a driveway are a bucket of water, wax, a car, and a truck. I tell you, "I only washed the truck." What do you know? Do you know if I did or did not wash the car?
Suppose two parties privately sell an item in one state and then the new owner transports the item to a second state. He uses the item in the second state. Tax is paid in the first state. The tax is paid on the transaction not on the use. So how can the state say with a straight face that this is a "use tax"? It's clearly linguistic gymnastics to circumvent the commerce clause.
I enjoyed the movies Blade Runner and Minority Report, so I tried reading some of the original short stories. I was disappointed. The writing style is uninspired and the characters are underdeveloped. I think this works for the filmmakers, because they are free to take a premise and fill in the details.
So only for emergency situations where they are allowed to disregard traffic laws otherwise? IOW, to talk on the radio absent such a situation, they have to pull over?
Sure.... That has a chance of passing....
I'm not responsible for other people's opinions. What difference does it make, anyway? Lots of cops abuse their use of lights and sirens. If it was illegal for them to talk on the radio or phone for low-priority items while driving, I'm sure they'd still do that, too. If the safety risk of conversing on the phone or radio is anywhere near the safety risk of speeding (and it is), then it doesn't make much sense to hire people to drive around conversing on the phone or radio about how to catch speeders.
Does this mean no two-way radio for police while they are driving?
I think that would be OK for purposes of deploying and coordinating those policemen in emergency situations, in the same way it's OK for them to run red lights under those circumstances.
And when I got to final year high school, I was the only person in the class (top class, academically selective school) who could still do long division. I bet that now, 12 years on, I am again the only member of that class who can still do a long division.
WTF? Really? That just seems bizarre to me. I'm sure the overwhelming majority of my classmates was capable of long division at graduation. I must be really old or something.
So, my point is that granting special privileges to religious belief serves a useful social purpose. Yes, it's good for religious people (although I might argue how good it really is... religions tend to thrive on persecution.) But it's also good for society as a whole. Simply put, kill religious freedom is like eating your seed-corn.
Why does a special exception for freedom in the context of religion serve this purpose better than freedom just 'cuz? In other words, if the freedom is good in the religious context why is it not good in another context?
I still have to drive down to the bank every time I deal with anyone over fifty (who seem, with rare exception, genetically INCAPABLE of understanding even the simplest paypal transaction). I hate to think of all the gas I've wasted in the last few years on these people, when the U.S. could move to a much better system (sorry unemployed bank tellers).
You could mail your deposits to the bank instead of driving.
How someone learns is their own business, not the lecturer's. That's why it's a lecture and not a 'class'. The lecturer doesn't (or shouldn't) take personal interest in how you understand, they expect you to absorb and understand of your own accord. If you just type everything up and learn later on, that's your business.
My opinion is that a lecture is an innefficient way to transfer knowledge and frankly I don't understand why we do so much of it. If the students are passive, then the lecture is like a book or movie but with added logistics, cost, and wasted time. The professor in the article wants to run a class.
I mean cmon.. the banks have insurance to cover the actual money lost, don't they?
You do understand that insurance isn't a magical wealth creation machine, right? The banks' insurance premiums have to cover these losses plus the overhead of the insurance company itself.
When you see a thousand comments with a thousand different names all supporting the same view, how do you know whether it's a widely held view or one loon with nine hundred and ninety nine sock puppets? How do you know whether it's astroturf by a foreign corporation or foreign government meddling in your affairs?
You don't.
Of course you don't. Since you already know that a quantity of anonymous opinions doesn't carry as much weight as the same quanitity of attributed opinions, what problem are you trying to solve by outlawing anonymous opinions? Are you afraid that someone else might over-value the anonymous opinions? How did the governement get the job of deciding the appropriate value to place on anonymous opinions? I also think you're missing the importance of the quality of the anonymous speech. The Ferderalist Papers has more value to society than thousands of "me too!" posts.
The only other reasons I can see is that we're boxing in Iran in some kind of cold-war era containment doctrine action, a message to the rest of the world that American can just go in and invade whoever we want, and natural resources, the most prominent of which is oil.
Iran and Iraq were enemies before the US invasion. Without constant military intervention, Iran's influence in Iraq will grow due to the toppling of the Sunni government.
"and that an ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere."
Eh. No.
That was also my first instinct, but I can see some problems. Can a person sell his likeness? What if he sells his likeness and the movie studio uses it in a way that he finds morally repugnant? What are the implications of creating CGI films containing models of public figures? Or models just strikingly similar to yourself or a friend?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you think that Americans derive more benefit from sending and receiving packages than they're willing to pay? Why do you suppose that is?
I'm pretty sure this part happens already.
Basically, this whole post says that the rest of the world should be like Europe. Clearly, Europe is getting some of those things right relative to the US. But with respect to cars and living space, aren't the Chinese and Africans more conservative? Why exactly is Europe the gold standard of consumption level?
Great post. Let me add an analogy. If the government starts recording video of activities in my bedroom, wearing masks isn't the best way to protect privacy.
This sounds like the way an audiophile would describe a cable. Can you describe the characteristics of a robust GUI to a user?
OK, but how do we know that your brain exploding isn't causing these posts to be moderated highly?
It makes sense because the intended meaning is so much more likely than the stated meaning. "Only" modifies H.264 (H.264 but not other codecs). So the most expressive position for the word "only" is before H.264.
The other word order implies that "only" modifies "support" (support but not other actions, e.g., "invent"). I agree that the meaning in this sentence can be inferred, but the word order makes the readers' brains work harder than they should have to.
Consider this scenario:
Sitting in a driveway are a bucket of water, wax, a car, and a truck. I tell you, "I only washed the truck." What do you know? Do you know if I did or did not wash the car?
If they'd learn English they could. ;-)
Who wrote this? Yoda?
Why IE9 Will Not Support Other Codecs Than H.264
Why IE9 Will Not Support Codecs Other Than H.264
There is a new article up on Microsoft's IEBlog explaining why IE9 will only support H.264
There is a new article up on Microsoft's IEBlog explaining why IE9 will support only H.264
Absolutely. I don't have a facebook account for this reason.
The end users aren't Facebook's customers.
Suppose two parties privately sell an item in one state and then the new owner transports the item to a second state. He uses the item in the second state. Tax is paid in the first state. The tax is paid on the transaction not on the use. So how can the state say with a straight face that this is a "use tax"? It's clearly linguistic gymnastics to circumvent the commerce clause.
I enjoyed the movies Blade Runner and Minority Report, so I tried reading some of the original short stories. I was disappointed. The writing style is uninspired and the characters are underdeveloped. I think this works for the filmmakers, because they are free to take a premise and fill in the details.
I'm not responsible for other people's opinions. What difference does it make, anyway? Lots of cops abuse their use of lights and sirens. If it was illegal for them to talk on the radio or phone for low-priority items while driving, I'm sure they'd still do that, too. If the safety risk of conversing on the phone or radio is anywhere near the safety risk of speeding (and it is), then it doesn't make much sense to hire people to drive around conversing on the phone or radio about how to catch speeders.
I think that would be OK for purposes of deploying and coordinating those policemen in emergency situations, in the same way it's OK for them to run red lights under those circumstances.
I'm willing to say that.
WTF? Really? That just seems bizarre to me. I'm sure the overwhelming majority of my classmates was capable of long division at graduation. I must be really old or something.
I agree; excellent idea. When do you think they can try out doing it sober?
Why does a special exception for freedom in the context of religion serve this purpose better than freedom just 'cuz? In other words, if the freedom is good in the religious context why is it not good in another context?
You could mail your deposits to the bank instead of driving.
My opinion is that a lecture is an innefficient way to transfer knowledge and frankly I don't understand why we do so much of it. If the students are passive, then the lecture is like a book or movie but with added logistics, cost, and wasted time. The professor in the article wants to run a class.
You do understand that insurance isn't a magical wealth creation machine, right? The banks' insurance premiums have to cover these losses plus the overhead of the insurance company itself.
I disagree here.
I agree here.
Of course you don't. Since you already know that a quantity of anonymous opinions doesn't carry as much weight as the same quanitity of attributed opinions, what problem are you trying to solve by outlawing anonymous opinions? Are you afraid that someone else might over-value the anonymous opinions? How did the governement get the job of deciding the appropriate value to place on anonymous opinions? I also think you're missing the importance of the quality of the anonymous speech. The Ferderalist Papers has more value to society than thousands of "me too!" posts.
Iran and Iraq were enemies before the US invasion. Without constant military intervention, Iran's influence in Iraq will grow due to the toppling of the Sunni government.
That was also my first instinct, but I can see some problems. Can a person sell his likeness? What if he sells his likeness and the movie studio uses it in a way that he finds morally repugnant? What are the implications of creating CGI films containing models of public figures? Or models just strikingly similar to yourself or a friend?
The submitter must have been talking on his cell phone when he wrote the summary.