That idea has its root in a imaginary construction of mid 19th century economists -Ecco Homo- the economic man- who has infinite time energy attention ability and perfect information to parse all his economic decisions, always making the one which is best for himself.
It takes "infinite time energy attention [sic] and perfect information" to only buy products that are labeled as non-GMO only?
You realize that this entire story is about a company adding a non-GMO label to their product, specifically because General Mills thinks that people will choose on their own to buy it?
Supposing you're from the industry, believe me. you want to pick another fight. You want to work your PR from another angle. Label it and let people get used to it, then it won't matter. But if people want GMO labeling, they're going to have it or heads are going to roll, THEN they're going to have it.
If you actually believed this, then you wouldn't be trying to use the government to force GMO labeling -- because people simply would refuse to buy food that wasn't labeled.
But as this chart shows, the total has quintupled in the past seven weeks, and has more than doubled in the past four, thanks mainly to brisk uptake in the state-run marketplaces. If these trends continue, the projection for March 31 is still well within reach.
Quintupling every 7 weeks, if these trends continue, there will be 200 billion enrollees by the end of 2014.
The article says that Amazon called it "accidental," and that access has already been restored for those who already bought it.
The most likely explanation is that Disney wanted to stop selling it through Amazon, and nobody really considered the fact that that customers should retain access to what they've already bought.
So you tell them to send you a pre-addressed box for shipping, which you'll leave at a place that's convenient for you. If they don't want to go to the effort to make it easy for you, then you'd be justified in keeping it.
It would be a perfectly reasonable response to tell them "it is too inconvenient for me to ship it back to you; you come pick it up." What is not reasonable is to try to profit from somebody else's honest mistake -- a mistake that doesn't harm you -- at their expense. That's what this is really about, and the arguments over legality, or inconvenience, are just an attempt at avoiding that.
I hadn't heard of that -- but hopefully where they're going, other sports will follow. I'm completely uninterested in watching baseball, but at least they've got the right idea.
The situation with sports broadcasting is ridiculous. It would cost me well over $100 per month to get TV service with the additional extra "packages" to be able to watch all the games for the team that I follow. There is no chance that I will ever pay for that. If they had any halfway reasonable pricing for a streaming option, I'd be all over it.
And if you're not sure that either one is secure, are you really gaining anything by using two - maybe you should spend some time finding a lock that you *do* trust.
There is no PRNG, Yarrow included, that we can say with 100% certainty that is not (or will not be) broken. The point of using multiple PRNGs is so that even if one or more of the components is compromised, it doesn't compromise the entire system. To use your metaphor: if your options are a padlock and a keyed lock, and there's a 25% chance each that a burglar could bypass them -- wouldn't you use both locks to reduce the probability of being robbed to 1/16 instead of 1/4?
pavon did not "incorrectly describe" anything. You formed an incorrect definition of what "chat" means, which led you to misinterpret what he said. The fact that most "chat" via computers used to be text-only communication is an artifact of the technology that was available, nothing more.
(Note that he didn't even say "web chat", but that's beside the point.)
What does lip reading have anything to do with chat (ie, text communication)?
Somehow you seem to have come to the conclusion that "chat" means "digital communication using text." It doesn't. The verb "chat" predates digital text communication by a very, very long time.
There are 7 billion people on earth. Hundreds of thousands of people die each day, many in violent deaths, and most of those did nothing wrong.
I may not wish those who commit crimes dead, but I'm sure not going to feel sympathetic when one of them snuffs it. These guys are a waste of skin. If they want to be treated like human beings, they should have acted like it.
Slashdot Mirror
That idea has its root in a imaginary construction of mid 19th century economists -Ecco Homo- the economic man- who has infinite time energy attention ability and perfect information to parse all his economic decisions, always making the one which is best for himself.
It takes "infinite time energy attention [sic] and perfect information" to only buy products that are labeled as non-GMO only?
You realize that this entire story is about a company adding a non-GMO label to their product, specifically because General Mills thinks that people will choose on their own to buy it?
Supposing you're from the industry, believe me. you want to pick another fight. You want to work your PR from another angle. Label it and let people get used to it, then it won't matter. But if people want GMO labeling, they're going to have it or heads are going to roll, THEN they're going to have it.
If you actually believed this, then you wouldn't be trying to use the government to force GMO labeling -- because people simply would refuse to buy food that wasn't labeled.
Allowing moderators to moderate the articles themselves would be an admission that the Slashdot editors aren't very good at what they do.
But as this chart shows, the total has quintupled in the past seven weeks, and has more than doubled in the past four, thanks mainly to brisk uptake in the state-run marketplaces. If these trends continue, the projection for March 31 is still well within reach.
Quintupling every 7 weeks, if these trends continue, there will be 200 billion enrollees by the end of 2014.
Let's see what the naysayers say then!
This is how Internet Explorer would look if you move the tabs to the top like in other browsers.
Turns out that it would look pretty much the same as the other browsers. Thanks timothy, I never could have figured that one out!
Perhaps he thought that sainthood was only conferred upon the deceased?
The article says that Amazon called it "accidental," and that access has already been restored for those who already bought it.
The most likely explanation is that Disney wanted to stop selling it through Amazon, and nobody really considered the fact that that customers should retain access to what they've already bought.
If you're going to flame somebody for not reading, you probably should read the post they're replying to.
So you tell them "I'll leave it on the doorstep for you to pick up." Or whatever else works for you with minimal inconvenience.
Yes, it's their responsibility to make it convenient for you. If they can't or don't want to do that, then your responsibility to them ends.
So you tell them to send you a pre-addressed box for shipping, which you'll leave at a place that's convenient for you. If they don't want to go to the effort to make it easy for you, then you'd be justified in keeping it.
This isn't rocket science.
It would be a perfectly reasonable response to tell them "it is too inconvenient for me to ship it back to you; you come pick it up." What is not reasonable is to try to profit from somebody else's honest mistake -- a mistake that doesn't harm you -- at their expense. That's what this is really about, and the arguments over legality, or inconvenience, are just an attempt at avoiding that.
I hadn't heard of that -- but hopefully where they're going, other sports will follow. I'm completely uninterested in watching baseball, but at least they've got the right idea.
The situation with sports broadcasting is ridiculous. It would cost me well over $100 per month to get TV service with the additional extra "packages" to be able to watch all the games for the team that I follow. There is no chance that I will ever pay for that. If they had any halfway reasonable pricing for a streaming option, I'd be all over it.
And if you're not sure that either one is secure, are you really gaining anything by using two - maybe you should spend some time finding a lock that you *do* trust.
There is no PRNG, Yarrow included, that we can say with 100% certainty that is not (or will not be) broken. The point of using multiple PRNGs is so that even if one or more of the components is compromised, it doesn't compromise the entire system. To use your metaphor: if your options are a padlock and a keyed lock, and there's a 25% chance each that a burglar could bypass them -- wouldn't you use both locks to reduce the probability of being robbed to 1/16 instead of 1/4?
Unfortunately, the actual correction should be "more."
That only works if you can cut it in half first.
pavon did not "incorrectly describe" anything. You formed an incorrect definition of what "chat" means, which led you to misinterpret what he said. The fact that most "chat" via computers used to be text-only communication is an artifact of the technology that was available, nothing more.
(Note that he didn't even say "web chat", but that's beside the point.)
What does lip reading have anything to do with chat (ie, text communication)?
Somehow you seem to have come to the conclusion that "chat" means "digital communication using text." It doesn't. The verb "chat" predates digital text communication by a very, very long time.
Because not all of us can read lips?
There are 7 billion people on earth. Hundreds of thousands of people die each day, many in violent deaths, and most of those did nothing wrong.
I may not wish those who commit crimes dead, but I'm sure not going to feel sympathetic when one of them snuffs it. These guys are a waste of skin. If they want to be treated like human beings, they should have acted like it.
would they have been thrown in jail for a decade and fined for all of the financial damage it caused?
They should have been. Driving your truck is not "speech." Purposefully shutting down the city deserves punishment.
Spoken like somebody who wasn't introduced to digital porn until after 1995.
No! Men and women are EQUAL, dammit! I'm not listening, lalalalalala...!
One of the great myths of our time is that "equality" is the same as "identicality."
There's no reason for an advanced, "civilized" human society to treat living, sentient* creatures as products to consume.
Sure there is: because they taste good.
You just mean that there's no reason that you approve of.
I can't for sites that I don't regularly visit, like healthcare.gov.
My grandmother uses a password safe, and she still talks about "downloading the facebook." If you can post to slashdot, you can use a password safe.
Since Salinger is dead, there is no moral reason to honor his wishes. He doesn't care -- he's dead.