"My manager does a lot of argle fargle" is not actually an excuse for ignoring strong hints from your manager for you to do less argle fargle. At will employment is what it is.
The big picture issue is and always has been that the movie industry avoids making movies with non-white male central characters out of some combination of lack of imagination, cowardice, and racism. We have saying all along that if you bother to try to have a few big pictures with not whitebread boring usual cast of characters, you could easily make big money doing that, too. And it will be FUN. Well, we were right. In spades.
You can argue over how important Blade was or was not, if it floats your boat. I liked that movie, BTW.
There are a lot of Hohmann transfer orbits. Between two particular planets, they all have nearly identical energy. Space is big and little things like roadsters will never hit each other. The planet earth is different because size + gravity gives it substantial cross section to collide with.
I gave up on FB years ago when posts from my wife, ones that I read and responded to a couple days ago, took effort to find again. But, hey! Here is more news about nobodies who are famous for being famous on FB!
There is a strong correlation between driving revenue growth and bad user experience. A few ads in the sidebar were a good compromise that users did not mind and could be sold to build some brand image and a bit of clickbait. But ads in the feed are poison. And since the mobile devices do not support sidebar, add more suck.
You misunderstand your own example. What brings costs down is competition. A lot of big pieces of infrastructure like airports do not have head-to-head competition. If you hate your local airport and need to fly cross country for business, are you going to take a train? If the major freeways around your home are privately owned, are you going to walk?
I know that it is fashionable to pretend that government is bad at everything and private enterprise is better, but it is simply not true in the real world.
Suggesting to private companies what they should do is called free speech. If private companies choose to protect their brands by listening to feedback from the public that is also called free speech.
So you want stop the thought police by first stomping on freedom? How is that going to work out?
No, they acquired their information by legal means. It is only HIPAA relevant data or gov't employees performing their gov't duties where there is any meaningful concept of privacy.
You are conflating superficial detail and foundational concepts by lumping them together as "premise".
For example, at the superficial level, both versions of Battlestar Galatica are the same. At a deeper level, the first is a romp of a space western with a few cheap Cold War and Christian mythic references thrown in to spice up the drama, and second is gritty True Horror (the exploration of what humanity really means through extremely ugly moral dilemmas).
At the superficial level, Firefly was a western. At a deeper level, it is about a ship filled with wounded birds, bravely living the consequences of their choices and wondering if there might be a better life, if only they could get past the challenge of the week.
Inara herself is a classic trope at the superficial level -- Whedon chose that first impression because it is easy to understand. At a deeper level, she is more than that. At the cusp of fabulous success of her chosen career, she realized it will not bring her happiness. The kooky career shift is a desperate means to explore who she really is while keeping one foot in the door of the world where she can fall back on her successes. It does not quite make sense and she knows it; but it can sort of work for a few years.
The days of the Old Republic, people of such value to the honest citizenry very well might be stoned to death by an angry mob. (Not that Old Republic. The ones without Jedi and Sith.)
I am not suggesting that replacing the space shuttle with nothing would have been better. However, simpler rockets would have been ballpark ~70% cheaper and probably significantly more reliable. Imagine twice as many scientific probes into our solar system, twice as many science satellites, and a bigger and better ISS earlier...all for less money.
I believe it means that, similar to the USN effort, promises are made that this new very expensive thing will be great at everything. And it turns out to be very expensive and not very good at anything.
To get more concrete... The thing about a littoral craft is the environment is potentially very hazardous, since shallow water puts you in reach of a dizzying array of threats, including ones affordable to tinpot dictatorships. So if you are not really really good at kicking ass against everything all the time, your precious ships looks like a liability to use anywhere that its alleged strengths could matter.
This frigate was supposed to be so souped up and effective, that it would be as effective as a larger class of ship in most jobs, and smaller and lighter so it is more flexible and practical to maintain. Except it fails. A modern basic destroyer at least would do some jobs very well, at similar expense. Or a normal USN frigate could do some jobs pretty well, for cheap.
On a "power point" style presentation, it sounds really good to pay a premium to get one great craft that can do 3-4 things well, instead of the weird mix of old fashioned kit that does one and a half things well. This will save money, right?
But it is really easy to set the details of the requirements wrong and achieve something that is bad at everything for a high price.
It is a good question. CEOs do perceive that in the post-SOX environment getting your books in order such that it can survive SEC scrutiny and go public is much more arduous. To oversimplify it, either you company is growing quickly or it is not. If it is, then your board will be patient with you, you can get more operating funds, and you consider the question or going public or getting bought for another year, when your valuation is likely to be even more attraction. If you are not growing quickly, maybe you should spend your time being a leader and running your company better, because the distraction of spending roughly a year over the IPO paperwork and roadshow is not going to fix anything on its own. Besides, your best bet in the second scenario is that your can "pivot" to be enticingly competent at something, and then someone might buy you, in spite of your company's obvious crappiness at a bunch of other important things.
In a civil case, it is always reasonable to suggest the replacement costs of that which was damaged or stolen. Judges and juries who agree with the plaintiff's argument regarding fault do not automatically accept such price numbers, for various reasons, including the prices swinging too much to set an obvious number.
Nope. The FBI can put whatever is convenient in the FISA application, sufficient to met the legal standard in the eyes of the judge. If they do not like the answer from the FISA court, they will then cough up more information and try again. They did not have to.
If they did not have Steele's dossier, maybe they would have been done. Or maybe they would have used other sources. I do not know. You do not know either. Pretending to know something you do not is just silliness, at best.
You seem to have missed the key point that the FBI and DoJ deliberately left out the political origins and the fact the the Steele dossier was uncorroborated from the FISA court.
FOUR TIMES.
You have missed that fact that you just created a completely novel legal standard out of whole cloth in order to support your predetermined ideologically-driven conclusion.
LEOs are not ethically obliged to explain to judges why their informants might be less than saintly. They are not obliged to present only 100% absolutely perfectly true information. They are obliged to offer only evidence that is highly likely to accurate, in their professional opinion. Judges are expected to use their brains and understand that evidence might be challenged or might not always be reliable, when applying the appropriate legal standard for granting or denying the warrant request.
This stuff happens every day in every county in every state in the country. Perhaps Page was treated unfairly, or not -- I do not know either way. But he was not treated unfairly because the FBI did not choose invent a whole new law enforcement process to suit Page. Like you just did.
I have no opinion about whether the surveillance on Page was appropriate, because it is obvious that the information available is too incomplete to form an intelligent and honest conclusion.
The FBI is not expected to spill all the information it has to FISA. It makes requests and provides what information it deems sufficient to meet the legal standard. If the FISA judges do not agree with the request, the FBI will try again, adding more information. The judges were sufficiently swayed that the FBI did not have to go back and forth.
Furthermore, there is nothing automatically wrong with using information provided by a political enemy of the potential target, as long as the investigating officials have "good enough" reason to believe the information is highly accurate, not necessarily perfectly accurate. If LEOs were required to only rely on only completely honest informants who have absolutely no reason to see harm to the target, a heck of a lot of normal search warrant requests would be denied every day.
Playing the "But Steele does not like Trump" card implies that judges all across this country are utterly failing to uphold the Constitution. Why should I care about Carter, when the complainers never seemed to have cared about the Constitution in the first place?
Right. You are correct. I still do not accept the solution provided.
To be clear, it is obvious to me that the provided scenario is an acceptable solution. I am not seeing how we can know there are no other acceptable solutions.
The key reasoning in buried in this comment:
The person who shook 8 hands has to be married to the person who shook 0 hands (otherwise that person could have shaken only seven hands.)
"Has to" means what? We have not established that someone who shook 8 hands cannot be married to someone who shook 7 hands. The suggests to me that the original version of this problem had someone other restriction, one that did not appear in this formulation of the puzzle, e.g. "spouses do not shake hands with the same person". A new restriction will force the pairing. But that would be a different puzzle.
So even if the scenario is correct, I would still grade this solution as wrong, because the hardest part of the logic is just handwaved away.
...There's also the small problem that there isn't really anything special about Bitcoin that make it inherently more valuable than...
That is a subtlety that the cryptocurrencies fetishists carefully avoid thinking about. It turns out that pure fiat cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin are the least protected from hyperinflation of any kind "money". Because it is so easy to "print" entire new cryptocurrencies and the switching costs are low, the potential for hyperinflation in an individual cryptocurrency would shock even Robert Mugabe.
The technical traders have a lot of technical skill and technical resources. So predictions systems that work for them 51% of the time, that could be making them enough money to pay for a third BMW, second vacation home, and a mistress, could easily be a complete disaster for you or me. A big part of any good model is the model itself telling you that it is no longer reliable and it is time to exit in a hurry. The pro traders can execute moves in seconds that you and I would take minutes to accomplish, so they are more likely to escape the full negative consequences. Usually. But remember Long Term Capital.
Slashdot Mirror
"My manager does a lot of argle fargle" is not actually an excuse for ignoring strong hints from your manager for you to do less argle fargle. At will employment is what it is.
The big picture issue is and always has been that the movie industry avoids making movies with non-white male central characters out of some combination of lack of imagination, cowardice, and racism. We have saying all along that if you bother to try to have a few big pictures with not whitebread boring usual cast of characters, you could easily make big money doing that, too. And it will be FUN. Well, we were right. In spades.
You can argue over how important Blade was or was not, if it floats your boat. I liked that movie, BTW.
There are a lot of Hohmann transfer orbits. Between two particular planets, they all have nearly identical energy. Space is big and little things like roadsters will never hit each other. The planet earth is different because size + gravity gives it substantial cross section to collide with.
I gave up on FB years ago when posts from my wife, ones that I read and responded to a couple days ago, took effort to find again. But, hey! Here is more news about nobodies who are famous for being famous on FB!
There is a strong correlation between driving revenue growth and bad user experience. A few ads in the sidebar were a good compromise that users did not mind and could be sold to build some brand image and a bit of clickbait. But ads in the feed are poison. And since the mobile devices do not support sidebar, add more suck.
You misunderstand your own example. What brings costs down is competition. A lot of big pieces of infrastructure like airports do not have head-to-head competition. If you hate your local airport and need to fly cross country for business, are you going to take a train? If the major freeways around your home are privately owned, are you going to walk?
I know that it is fashionable to pretend that government is bad at everything and private enterprise is better, but it is simply not true in the real world.
What if the highest bidder is Emirates (airline) or Tata?
If Ayn Rand were here today, even she would say you were an idiot.
Suggesting to private companies what they should do is called free speech. If private companies choose to protect their brands by listening to feedback from the public that is also called free speech.
So you want stop the thought police by first stomping on freedom? How is that going to work out?
No, they acquired their information by legal means. It is only HIPAA relevant data or gov't employees performing their gov't duties where there is any meaningful concept of privacy.
You are conflating superficial detail and foundational concepts by lumping them together as "premise".
For example, at the superficial level, both versions of Battlestar Galatica are the same. At a deeper level, the first is a romp of a space western with a few cheap Cold War and Christian mythic references thrown in to spice up the drama, and second is gritty True Horror (the exploration of what humanity really means through extremely ugly moral dilemmas).
At the superficial level, Firefly was a western. At a deeper level, it is about a ship filled with wounded birds, bravely living the consequences of their choices and wondering if there might be a better life, if only they could get past the challenge of the week.
Inara herself is a classic trope at the superficial level -- Whedon chose that first impression because it is easy to understand. At a deeper level, she is more than that. At the cusp of fabulous success of her chosen career, she realized it will not bring her happiness. The kooky career shift is a desperate means to explore who she really is while keeping one foot in the door of the world where she can fall back on her successes. It does not quite make sense and she knows it; but it can sort of work for a few years.
Just wait until the crusade to eliminate gov't tyranny (in the form of useful public services) bequeaths flyover land the end of Mail Neutrality.
The days of the Old Republic, people of such value to the honest citizenry very well might be stoned to death by an angry mob. (Not that Old Republic. The ones without Jedi and Sith.)
I am not suggesting that replacing the space shuttle with nothing would have been better. However, simpler rockets would have been ballpark ~70% cheaper and probably significantly more reliable. Imagine twice as many scientific probes into our solar system, twice as many science satellites, and a bigger and better ISS earlier ...all for less money.
I believe it means that, similar to the USN effort, promises are made that this new very expensive thing will be great at everything. And it turns out to be very expensive and not very good at anything.
To get more concrete... The thing about a littoral craft is the environment is potentially very hazardous, since shallow water puts you in reach of a dizzying array of threats, including ones affordable to tinpot dictatorships. So if you are not really really good at kicking ass against everything all the time, your precious ships looks like a liability to use anywhere that its alleged strengths could matter.
This frigate was supposed to be so souped up and effective, that it would be as effective as a larger class of ship in most jobs, and smaller and lighter so it is more flexible and practical to maintain. Except it fails. A modern basic destroyer at least would do some jobs very well, at similar expense. Or a normal USN frigate could do some jobs pretty well, for cheap.
Or the space shuttle.
On a "power point" style presentation, it sounds really good to pay a premium to get one great craft that can do 3-4 things well, instead of the weird mix of old fashioned kit that does one and a half things well. This will save money, right?
But it is really easy to set the details of the requirements wrong and achieve something that is bad at everything for a high price.
It is a good question. CEOs do perceive that in the post-SOX environment getting your books in order such that it can survive SEC scrutiny and go public is much more arduous. To oversimplify it, either you company is growing quickly or it is not. If it is, then your board will be patient with you, you can get more operating funds, and you consider the question or going public or getting bought for another year, when your valuation is likely to be even more attraction. If you are not growing quickly, maybe you should spend your time being a leader and running your company better, because the distraction of spending roughly a year over the IPO paperwork and roadshow is not going to fix anything on its own. Besides, your best bet in the second scenario is that your can "pivot" to be enticingly competent at something, and then someone might buy you, in spite of your company's obvious crappiness at a bunch of other important things.
In a civil case, it is always reasonable to suggest the replacement costs of that which was damaged or stolen. Judges and juries who agree with the plaintiff's argument regarding fault do not automatically accept such price numbers, for various reasons, including the prices swinging too much to set an obvious number.
Wh-hat...that is so...sensible.
Not a drill
Nope. The FBI can put whatever is convenient in the FISA application, sufficient to met the legal standard in the eyes of the judge. If they do not like the answer from the FISA court, they will then cough up more information and try again. They did not have to.
If they did not have Steele's dossier, maybe they would have been done. Or maybe they would have used other sources. I do not know. You do not know either. Pretending to know something you do not is just silliness, at best.
You seem to have missed the key point that the FBI and DoJ deliberately left out the political origins and the fact the the Steele dossier was uncorroborated from the FISA court.
FOUR TIMES.
You have missed that fact that you just created a completely novel legal standard out of whole cloth in order to support your predetermined ideologically-driven conclusion.
LEOs are not ethically obliged to explain to judges why their informants might be less than saintly. They are not obliged to present only 100% absolutely perfectly true information. They are obliged to offer only evidence that is highly likely to accurate, in their professional opinion. Judges are expected to use their brains and understand that evidence might be challenged or might not always be reliable, when applying the appropriate legal standard for granting or denying the warrant request.
This stuff happens every day in every county in every state in the country. Perhaps Page was treated unfairly, or not -- I do not know either way. But he was not treated unfairly because the FBI did not choose invent a whole new law enforcement process to suit Page. Like you just did.
I have no opinion about whether the surveillance on Page was appropriate, because it is obvious that the information available is too incomplete to form an intelligent and honest conclusion.
The FBI is not expected to spill all the information it has to FISA. It makes requests and provides what information it deems sufficient to meet the legal standard. If the FISA judges do not agree with the request, the FBI will try again, adding more information. The judges were sufficiently swayed that the FBI did not have to go back and forth.
Furthermore, there is nothing automatically wrong with using information provided by a political enemy of the potential target, as long as the investigating officials have "good enough" reason to believe the information is highly accurate, not necessarily perfectly accurate. If LEOs were required to only rely on only completely honest informants who have absolutely no reason to see harm to the target, a heck of a lot of normal search warrant requests would be denied every day.
Playing the "But Steele does not like Trump" card implies that judges all across this country are utterly failing to uphold the Constitution. Why should I care about Carter, when the complainers never seemed to have cared about the Constitution in the first place?
Right. You are correct. I still do not accept the solution provided.
To be clear, it is obvious to me that the provided scenario is an acceptable solution. I am not seeing how we can know there are no other acceptable solutions.
The key reasoning in buried in this comment:
The person who shook 8 hands has to be married to the person who shook 0 hands (otherwise that person could have shaken only seven hands.)
"Has to" means what? We have not established that someone who shook 8 hands cannot be married to someone who shook 7 hands. The suggests to me that the original version of this problem had someone other restriction, one that did not appear in this formulation of the puzzle, e.g. "spouses do not shake hands with the same person". A new restriction will force the pairing. But that would be a different puzzle.
So even if the scenario is correct, I would still grade this solution as wrong, because the hardest part of the logic is just handwaved away.
...There's also the small problem that there isn't really anything special about Bitcoin that make it inherently more valuable than...
That is a subtlety that the cryptocurrencies fetishists carefully avoid thinking about. It turns out that pure fiat cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin are the least protected from hyperinflation of any kind "money". Because it is so easy to "print" entire new cryptocurrencies and the switching costs are low, the potential for hyperinflation in an individual cryptocurrency would shock even Robert Mugabe.
The technical traders have a lot of technical skill and technical resources. So predictions systems that work for them 51% of the time, that could be making them enough money to pay for a third BMW, second vacation home, and a mistress, could easily be a complete disaster for you or me. A big part of any good model is the model itself telling you that it is no longer reliable and it is time to exit in a hurry. The pro traders can execute moves in seconds that you and I would take minutes to accomplish, so they are more likely to escape the full negative consequences. Usually. But remember Long Term Capital.