The interesting thing is that all those countries one could list without "free healthcare" and "free education" have the same thing in common, they are also either faling or were bailed out, while there are counter examples to your alleged connection: Neither China nor Russia nor Cuba have ever been bailed out by the U.S. since they started free healthcare and free education, and it doesn't look as if they are failing right now. It thus seems that "free healthcare" or "free education" is no way to predict if a country is prone to fail or has to be bailed out. Please come up with a better criterion!
It happens if the dead body is immediately covered by an air tight layer of e.g. sand, tar or mud. So you find many well preserved fossils in former swamps, river banks or tar pits. In this case it seems to have been preserved by sinking in the seabed of the Paratethys, part of the Tethys, which was an ocean between Africa and Eurasia, and whose remainings are the contemporan Mediterran.
The funding effect is a hypothesis by climate sceptics who try to explain why there are no results that prove their point.
Now we have a definitely climate-sceptics-paid study, and the results are the same than in the allegedly pro-climate-change funded studies. Obviously scientific results are independent from the causes for funding the study. Maybe we can put the funding effect put to rest? It was not a very good idea to begin with.
Years of subscription is a good proxy for the total exposation (and that's what matters here!).
Of course there are people who were heavy users from the beginning, while others got their phone just recently and aren't using it much. And there are people who refrained from getting a cell phone as long as possible, and are now heavy users because circumstances were so pressing that they finally went for a cell phone.
But in the end, it will get out on average, and in each of the groups, there are heavy users and users who seldom use a cell phone.
This is what I used (and later programmed myself) about 20 years ago in LPC (Lars Pensjö C, later called Pike). It was a command called "lpc", and it just took a piece of code as argument, wrote it into a file, compiled it on the fly and called its main and only method.
This is just a single woman spreading conspiracy theories. And I know, that hormones can influence rational thought, but to throw away all logic just because some girl tells you strange stuff? If you were a muslim extremist with a very negative attitude towards the U.S., would you join a movement which is supposedly sponsored by the very same U.S.? If not, who are the actual people the Muslim Brotherhood consists of? American patriots?
So you completely ignore what I was actually saying and constructing your own version of what a Sique in a parallel universe might have said.
Fine, that's ok with me, you are free to do so.
And now you understand why in common law it is possible to walk away from one sided contracts - because one sided contracts are not free. At least one point I made you understood. Good for you. And a restrainment in a GULAG is not necessarily physical. The GULAG slave is not chained. There is just a fence around, and there are people who will make sure that once you manage to flee the GULAG, you will die in the Tundra. And there are people around who will make sure that once you flee the GULAG, your loved ones will no longer be able to work in the jobs they like, will no longer be able to rent an appartement in the city they call home, will no longer be served at the local store, will not be admitted to anything else than elementary school, will not get necessary treatment in the hospital... I have the impression that people who never have endured an unfree life have no idea what freedom really consists of. They live under the impression that as long as no one does them physical harm or steals their properties, they are somehow protected from all evils of the world. This is naive.
I didn't say anything about your decision being objectively right or wrong, I only talked about decisions you consider right or wrong. Of course you can make mistakes. Of course you can err in the assesment of the possibilities. To know how it is to fail is a very important part of every education. You can't learn from your mistakes if you are not free to fail. Freedom means also giving you the room to make those mistakes, because education is a precondition to freedom.
A GULAG slave is not free to decide to go home, even when it would be the best decision given the circumstances, so my axiom still stands.
And yes, if you are lacking information or understanding how to handle them, your decision is not free, but biased. You are a prisoner where your ability to make sense of the world limits your freedom.
On the other hand, someone betrayed by somebody else into agreeing in a onesided contract has full ownership of his body and his properties, otherwise he wouldn't be able to make a contract where his property or his body is part of the agreement, and still his decision wasn't free, because he was missing relevant information, or he was lacking education to understand the contract, or he didn't get enough time to think through the contract.
Freedom means that your own evaluation of the situation should be the only factor for your decision.
This means four things: a) You can get all relevant information to evaluate the situation. b) You can get all relevant education to work with that information. c) You get reasonable time to form your opinion. d) You are not pressured to change the decision into one you consider wrong.
All freedoms stem from this axiom, and all tyrannies stem from the violation of this axiom.
Just to continue: sugar is a drug, soap is a drug, salt is one.
"drug" comes from "dried" (or better from its middle age equivalent dröge), and it means a substance that is extracted and refined from natural sources. That's why the drugstore is called as it is. And that's why "synthetic drug" is a paradoxon, as per definitionem something synthetic can't be a drug (e.g. from natural sources).
For some reason the word drug has been associated with the idea of intoxication and addiction.
I'm still wondering how much more whoosh you were presenting in your reply. (Lars Ulrich is from Danemark, not the U.S., and Metallica Minerals is from Australia, not Austria.)
I have to correct you, but actually it's possible to supervise all voting boxes until the last recount is done. If you understand any german (or the english your favourite online translator generates from german), you might have a look at Voting Fraud of Dachau to see it in action.
Why "representatives from each of the parties"? Why not "who wants to attend can attend"?
That's how it works for most elections anyway. If you want to watch the election, go to the voting hall and sit there. Watch the empty voting boxes being sealed. Watch the breaking fo the seal for the count. Watch the count. Watch the signing of the count sheet and the resealing of the voting boxes. Put your own seal on the boxes too, if you want. Accompagne the car transporting the voting boxes to the central voting office. etc.pp.
If enough people do this in enough voting districts, large scale fraud is nearly impossible. That's how the people of the former communist East Germany were able to prove in court the voting fraud at least in the last "election"s in 1989 - enough people were at the voting halls, watched the procedure, and took notes of the results, compared them with the official results as announced the next day and found discrepancies.
You can use the OpenStreetMap data on your garmin, which are quite up-to-date (e.g. the road that was moved and upgraded to four lanes in my neighbourhood showed up about the time of the opening in OSM).
You sound like a guy who is unhappy with the fact that someone you for some not very rational reasons don't like is compassionate about and successful with something he does, so you look for completely unimportant details to smear him.
As a man once married to a filipina, I can attest that a huge portion is just mental laziness. If a person can hear when their accent is being mimicked, then they know when they are saying it wrong. The mix of F and P sounds is simply ridiculous as the sounds are not even remotely the same. Worse, when she heard a word for the first time, she would mentally spell it in her mind and then pronounce it "her way" despite that the first time encountering a word was audible rather than written.
Let me correct your bias here. It actually depends on your language which phonemes sound the same and which do not. So it might be that in modern English, F and P sound different. But that's solely correct for modern English. In the Middle Ages, F and P were interchangable, and you often see words morphing from a p sound to an f sound and vice versa during the development of language. As an example, the english word "plant" comes from the same root (pun halfly intended) than the german word "pflanze", where the p-sound is morphed to an pf-sound, but the overall phonetic structure is the same.
There is a single criterion which allows you to assess if two sounds are the same for a language or not: Are there examples where the meaning of a word or syllable changes, if you change one phoneme into the other one? For modern English, there are such examples (e.g. pond vs. fond, paint vs. faint etc.pp.), thus english speakers consider them different. In spanish, no such examples exists, so spanish natives have a hard time making a difference between p and f.
(That's also the reason why chinese and japanese people have such difficulties making a difference between L and R - in their languages, it makes no difference, if you pronounce the L like an R or vice versa.)
GPUs are routinely 256 bit for both integer and floating point instructions. The Cell processor of Sony PS3 fame has seven 128 bit SPEs (Synergistic Processing Elements), which are controlled by a 64 bit PPE (PowerPC Processing Element).
But for comparison purposes, Exxon spent $23 million for climate research in 10 years. The US government spent $79 billion on climate research and technology since 1989 - to be sure, this funding paid for things like satellites and studies, but it's 3,500 times as much as anything offered to sceptics. (Source [abc.net.au]) Exxon also spent $600 million on biofuels research.
... which is dishonest by itself. Most of the money goes to weather monitoring and weather forecasting. Some of the largest computer clusters in the Top 500 list are purposebuilt for weather simulation and weather prediction. Many civilian satellites are weather satellites. The weather modelling got pretty good in recent years. While about 20 years back weather forecasts very valid only for about 24 hrs to 36 hrs, today's models are good at predicting the weather for the next three days, and the week forecasts are often correct.
So the infrastructure to collect weather data, to process it in simulations and to build models which resemble real weather processes is there - built for weather forecasting. And if someone starts to take all that raw data, processes it with all the dirty tricks and adaptions weather forecasters have developed to overcome faults and systematic errors, and which proved themselves in thousands of weather forecasts in the last 30 years, and then applies the same models that are so successful for the foreseeable future, to longer periods of the past and finds out that they work remarkably well even for runs over 50 years or 100 years and resemble the raw data results for those last 50 or 100 years, and then let the same models run 50 or 100 years in the future, he suddenly is a dishonest liar, whose only purpose in life is to get grant money from an overreaching government in its quest to control everybody?
Most climate scientist run experiments all the time - they try to predict the weather for the next days or weeks or months. They are pretty good at it. But a large share of the U.S. population (AGW deniers are much less in other countries) doesn't like the conclusions they come to, if they run their models for a longer period, and suddenly climate scientists are an evil bunch.
AGW deniers should stop believing the weather forecasts. It's pure hypocrisy to believe weather forecasts to be mostly correct and at the same time AGW to be a conjured scheme to funnel government money to climate scientists pockets. Because in fact they are the same people responsible for both, and the same theories backing their predictions.
The same problem we encountered with phone switches. For some reason many U.S. american developers think the U.S.ian system of phone numbers (3 digit area code, 3 digit + 4 digit local code, where the 4 digit part of local code can be part of a private block administered by a company owned phone switch) has some universality.
It hasn't. The only universality of this model is that it will fail universally everywhere outside the U.S. and Canada.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither should mandantory driver licenses. Your point being?
The interesting thing is that all those countries one could list without "free healthcare" and "free education" have the same thing in common, they are also either faling or were bailed out, while there are counter examples to your alleged connection: Neither China nor Russia nor Cuba have ever been bailed out by the U.S. since they started free healthcare and free education, and it doesn't look as if they are failing right now.
It thus seems that "free healthcare" or "free education" is no way to predict if a country is prone to fail or has to be bailed out.
Please come up with a better criterion!
It happens if the dead body is immediately covered by an air tight layer of e.g. sand, tar or mud. So you find many well preserved fossils in former swamps, river banks or tar pits. In this case it seems to have been preserved by sinking in the seabed of the Paratethys, part of the Tethys, which was an ocean between Africa and Eurasia, and whose remainings are the contemporan Mediterran.
The funding effect is a hypothesis by climate sceptics who try to explain why there are no results that prove their point.
Now we have a definitely climate-sceptics-paid study, and the results are the same than in the allegedly pro-climate-change funded studies. Obviously scientific results are independent from the causes for funding the study. Maybe we can put the funding effect put to rest? It was not a very good idea to begin with.
Years of subscription is a good proxy for the total exposation (and that's what matters here!).
Of course there are people who were heavy users from the beginning, while others got their phone just recently and aren't using it much.
And there are people who refrained from getting a cell phone as long as possible, and are now heavy users because circumstances were so pressing that they finally went for a cell phone.
But in the end, it will get out on average, and in each of the groups, there are heavy users and users who seldom use a cell phone.
This is what I used (and later programmed myself) about 20 years ago in LPC (Lars Pensjö C, later called Pike).
It was a command called "lpc", and it just took a piece of code as argument, wrote it into a file, compiled it on the fly and called its main and only method.
... and Smalltalk77 from Xerox was published in '77, when Apple just started to develop a GUI. Coincidence?
This is just a single woman spreading conspiracy theories. And I know, that hormones can influence rational thought, but to throw away all logic just because some girl tells you strange stuff?
If you were a muslim extremist with a very negative attitude towards the U.S., would you join a movement which is supposedly sponsored by the very same U.S.? If not, who are the actual people the Muslim Brotherhood consists of? American patriots?
So you completely ignore what I was actually saying and constructing your own version of what a Sique in a parallel universe might have said.
Fine, that's ok with me, you are free to do so.
And now you understand why in common law it is possible to walk away from one sided contracts - because one sided contracts are not free. At least one point I made you understood. Good for you.
And a restrainment in a GULAG is not necessarily physical. The GULAG slave is not chained. There is just a fence around, and there are people who will make sure that once you manage to flee the GULAG, you will die in the Tundra. And there are people around who will make sure that once you flee the GULAG, your loved ones will no longer be able to work in the jobs they like, will no longer be able to rent an appartement in the city they call home, will no longer be served at the local store, will not be admitted to anything else than elementary school, will not get necessary treatment in the hospital...
I have the impression that people who never have endured an unfree life have no idea what freedom really consists of. They live under the impression that as long as no one does them physical harm or steals their properties, they are somehow protected from all evils of the world. This is naive.
I didn't say anything about your decision being objectively right or wrong, I only talked about decisions you consider right or wrong.
Of course you can make mistakes. Of course you can err in the assesment of the possibilities. To know how it is to fail is a very important part of every education. You can't learn from your mistakes if you are not free to fail. Freedom means also giving you the room to make those mistakes, because education is a precondition to freedom.
A GULAG slave is not free to decide to go home, even when it would be the best decision given the circumstances, so my axiom still stands.
And yes, if you are lacking information or understanding how to handle them, your decision is not free, but biased. You are a prisoner where your ability to make sense of the world limits your freedom.
On the other hand, someone betrayed by somebody else into agreeing in a onesided contract has full ownership of his body and his properties, otherwise he wouldn't be able to make a contract where his property or his body is part of the agreement, and still his decision wasn't free, because he was missing relevant information, or he was lacking education to understand the contract, or he didn't get enough time to think through the contract.
Freedom means that your own evaluation of the situation should be the only factor for your decision.
This means four things:
a) You can get all relevant information to evaluate the situation.
b) You can get all relevant education to work with that information.
c) You get reasonable time to form your opinion.
d) You are not pressured to change the decision into one you consider wrong.
All freedoms stem from this axiom, and all tyrannies stem from the violation of this axiom.
Just to continue: sugar is a drug, soap is a drug, salt is one.
"drug" comes from "dried" (or better from its middle age equivalent dröge), and it means a substance that is extracted and refined from natural sources. That's why the drugstore is called as it is. And that's why "synthetic drug" is a paradoxon, as per definitionem something synthetic can't be a drug (e.g. from natural sources).
For some reason the word drug has been associated with the idea of intoxication and addiction.
I'm still wondering how much more whoosh you were presenting in your reply. (Lars Ulrich is from Danemark, not the U.S., and Metallica Minerals is from Australia, not Austria.)
I have to correct you, but actually it's possible to supervise all voting boxes until the last recount is done. If you understand any german (or the english your favourite online translator generates from german), you might have a look at Voting Fraud of Dachau to see it in action.
Why "representatives from each of the parties"? Why not "who wants to attend can attend"?
That's how it works for most elections anyway. If you want to watch the election, go to the voting hall and sit there. Watch the empty voting boxes being sealed. Watch the breaking fo the seal for the count. Watch the count. Watch the signing of the count sheet and the resealing of the voting boxes. Put your own seal on the boxes too, if you want. Accompagne the car transporting the voting boxes to the central voting office. etc.pp.
If enough people do this in enough voting districts, large scale fraud is nearly impossible. That's how the people of the former communist East Germany were able to prove in court the voting fraud at least in the last "election"s in 1989 - enough people were at the voting halls, watched the procedure, and took notes of the results, compared them with the official results as announced the next day and found discrepancies.
You can use the OpenStreetMap data on your garmin, which are quite up-to-date (e.g. the road that was moved and upgraded to four lanes in my neighbourhood showed up about the time of the opening in OSM).
You sound like a guy who is unhappy with the fact that someone you for some not very rational reasons don't like is compassionate about and successful with something he does, so you look for completely unimportant details to smear him.
As a man once married to a filipina, I can attest that a huge portion is just mental laziness. If a person can hear when their accent is being mimicked, then they know when they are saying it wrong. The mix of F and P sounds is simply ridiculous as the sounds are not even remotely the same. Worse, when she heard a word for the first time, she would mentally spell it in her mind and then pronounce it "her way" despite that the first time encountering a word was audible rather than written.
Let me correct your bias here. It actually depends on your language which phonemes sound the same and which do not. So it might be that in modern English, F and P sound different. But that's solely correct for modern English. In the Middle Ages, F and P were interchangable, and you often see words morphing from a p sound to an f sound and vice versa during the development of language. As an example, the english word "plant" comes from the same root (pun halfly intended) than the german word "pflanze", where the p-sound is morphed to an pf-sound, but the overall phonetic structure is the same.
There is a single criterion which allows you to assess if two sounds are the same for a language or not: Are there examples where the meaning of a word or syllable changes, if you change one phoneme into the other one? For modern English, there are such examples (e.g. pond vs. fond, paint vs. faint etc.pp.), thus english speakers consider them different. In spanish, no such examples exists, so spanish natives have a hard time making a difference between p and f.
(That's also the reason why chinese and japanese people have such difficulties making a difference between L and R - in their languages, it makes no difference, if you pronounce the L like an R or vice versa.)
GPUs are routinely 256 bit for both integer and floating point instructions. The Cell processor of Sony PS3 fame has seven 128 bit SPEs (Synergistic Processing Elements), which are controlled by a 64 bit PPE (PowerPC Processing Element).
His biggest problem appears to be completely wrong about the kind of people posing an actual threat to the U.S.
If you are start cutting down trees because you fear lightning might set your house on fire, your are still a loon.
But for comparison purposes, Exxon spent $23 million for climate research in 10 years. The US government spent $79 billion on climate research and technology since 1989 - to be sure, this funding paid for things like satellites and studies, but it's 3,500 times as much as anything offered to sceptics. (Source [abc.net.au]) Exxon also spent $600 million on biofuels research.
... which is dishonest by itself. Most of the money goes to weather monitoring and weather forecasting. Some of the largest computer clusters in the Top 500 list are purposebuilt for weather simulation and weather prediction. Many civilian satellites are weather satellites. The weather modelling got pretty good in recent years. While about 20 years back weather forecasts very valid only for about 24 hrs to 36 hrs, today's models are good at predicting the weather for the next three days, and the week forecasts are often correct.
So the infrastructure to collect weather data, to process it in simulations and to build models which resemble real weather processes is there - built for weather forecasting. And if someone starts to take all that raw data, processes it with all the dirty tricks and adaptions weather forecasters have developed to overcome faults and systematic errors, and which proved themselves in thousands of weather forecasts in the last 30 years, and then applies the same models that are so successful for the foreseeable future, to longer periods of the past and finds out that they work remarkably well even for runs over 50 years or 100 years and resemble the raw data results for those last 50 or 100 years, and then let the same models run 50 or 100 years in the future, he suddenly is a dishonest liar, whose only purpose in life is to get grant money from an overreaching government in its quest to control everybody?
Most climate scientist run experiments all the time - they try to predict the weather for the next days or weeks or months. They are pretty good at it. But a large share of the U.S. population (AGW deniers are much less in other countries) doesn't like the conclusions they come to, if they run their models for a longer period, and suddenly climate scientists are an evil bunch.
AGW deniers should stop believing the weather forecasts. It's pure hypocrisy to believe weather forecasts to be mostly correct and at the same time AGW to be a conjured scheme to funnel government money to climate scientists pockets. Because in fact they are the same people responsible for both, and the same theories backing their predictions.
Actually no, they just have a domain registered with the Tongan NIC.
I used a serial port last week, but I haven't used a fax machine for some months now.
In fact, I will work tonight with a serial port all the time.
So YMMV.
ad 2)
The same problem we encountered with phone switches. For some reason many U.S. american developers think the U.S.ian system of phone numbers (3 digit area code, 3 digit + 4 digit local code, where the 4 digit part of local code can be part of a private block administered by a company owned phone switch) has some universality.
It hasn't. The only universality of this model is that it will fail universally everywhere outside the U.S. and Canada.