How long are business days on Mercury? As the Mercury has a very strange synchronism between its own rotation and the orbit around the Sun, the same Sun constellation on the Mercury's sky reappears every 176 earth days.
If someone predicts something, and it doesn't happen, then the prediction was offbase, but to conclude fraud ist quite far fetched. If my navigation system predicts an arrival time of 1:55 pm, but I arrive at 2:05 pm or at 1:45 pm, would you conclude that TomTom deliberately gave a fraudulent estimate? I mistrust everyone, who can only conclude fraud if some prediction doesn't fit the real development. People can be honestly at fault. People always have incomplete information. And every future development is partly determined by unforeseeable events. If someone calls this a fraud, he's either clueless, or he just wants to blame someone.
And the area of the ice shelf at the Arctis is indeed larger (my numbers say 50%, 5.1 million square kilometers in 2013 instead of 3.4 square kilometers in 2012) than the year before, but it's still less than the long term average. This is at 13.9 million square kilometers for the years 1979-2000. So while 2012 might have been an extreme minimum, we are in 2013 still far away of any normalization.
My HTC Wildfire S came with 2.3, and it has 512 MBytes of RAM and a 600 MHz 1 core CPU(*) (Qualcomm MSM7227). And it runs ok with it. Main problem is the small space for additional applications.
(*) Actually, the MSM7227 has four cores, but only one is available for applications. The other cores work as DSP for applications, run the GSM/UTMS stack or work as DSP for the telephony subsystem.
Actually, with Stradivari violins, there is a twist: There was a blind comparision with a Stradivari, an off-the-shelf violin and a violin made from plastics, and the preferences of the professional listeners were quite evenly distributed. It seems as if there is some kind of placebo effect at work here: just knowing that you are listening to someone playing a Stradivari (who nearly invariably is someone who is very good at playing the violin) adds to the listening pleasure.
I often compare the number of people dying in a terrorist attack in Germany with the number of people dying due to suffocation by a fishbone (because I have the numbers for both). During the last 40 years, there were less than 200 deaths in Germany caused by known terrorist groups (32 of them killed by the Red Army Fraction, 10 by the National Socialist Underground). Every year, 700 people choke on a fishbone, which gives us 28000 fishbone related deaths in the last 40 years.
This is as generalized as it is generally false. If you were right, no governmental service would ever work. We wouldn't have a police, laws and courts, we wouldn't have an army, we wouldn't have any streets except for some privately owned turnpikes etc.pp..
Of course there is room for improvement, and sometimes, handing over services to private businesses actually improves the services, but the examples of successful transitions of governmental services into private hands are few (many of them are state owned telephony monopolies, and thus don't apply to the U.S. anyway), while the number of failures is high (Think: PGE, think British Railways, think private prison system...).
In many cases, the privatization of governmental services was sold under the promise of "more market freedom", while the real motivation was to create an opportunity to turn over tax money to private enterprises (a.k.a. subventions) and for a short time shedding of governmental fiscal discipline because of the money from the sale. Privatization of governmental services was thus one of the biggest redistributions of wealth from the many to the few.
So a country that has a police and courts of law is no free country according to your definition. You either are an anarchist who only considers ad hoc self organization as freedom, or your idea of freedom is fundamentally flawed, as it misses out some of the founding principles of (state guaranteed) freedom.
Something that often gets lost in a dispute about freedom is that it's never the human alone who is free (except he is really alone and no one in his vincinity), it's always the organisation of the humans into groups and relationships that gives various degrees of freedom.
This might work only for the first generation of those policies. If a certain type of policies is known to yield huge profits because of over-estimations, then everyone will try to enter this market, and prices start to drop. Getting your predictions right (if only for internal reports) is an actual market advantage no insurance company will give up. So yes, if insurance companies bet on global warming, it is highly probable that it is because their statisticians tell them that it is happening right now. It is surely not to please some grant-oogling scientists and some power greedy group of politicians to get their goodwill.
Not exactly. Over-predicting claims means that your policies will be more expensive than that of the competition, thus leaving you selling less policies. You actually have to predict it right at first, and then you can start to manipulate the prices until they fit your profit expectations.
You can only practice Art for a living, if someone agrees to finance your living. There are several models for that: patronage, entrance fees, taxes (which are governmental patronage), sponsored competitions which hand out prizes...
I know other countries have espionage agencies too. It still doesn't mean spying on other countries is legal in those other countries. These are quite different things you should keep separate. So grandstanding in your home country and proudly telling everyone it's legal what you are doing is one thing. It's even true. In the U.S., there is no law against spying in Brazil.
But I am sure if someone spying in the U.S. for Brazil gets caught, no one in the U.S. administration will go in froint of the press and state: "It's ok. Every country with any international dealings has an espionage agency."
So what you are saying is purely and utterly missing the point.
And "the others do it too" was never a valid excuse for any misdeeds. You don't believe it? Try it the next time you get caught speeding.
Oh, it's more complicated, but yes, Brazil had a nuclear weapons program, the Parallel Program, and it only got stopped when the civilian government took over, but they restarted enrichment again in 2006.
Brazil had nukes once, and I don't think they forgot how to make them. They just disbanded them when the military junta wanted to get "development help" in return.
I am not naive, but I guess here we have two conflicting interests: One is the finance side, which wants to collect as much money as seamlessly as possible, and then there is the law inforcement side, which likes to go on fishing expeditions. The finance side wants the companies to either report as many as possible data exports or alternatively process data at home creating taxable jobs. For this, it doesn't want to make moving data a hassle to anyone, while law enforcement prefers as much as possible insight into the actual data.
Given how cash strapped most governments are, I guess, finance will win.
Actually, it would have been:
"As I am licensed by the Bertrand of Chartres Heritage Trust to quote him, I hereby declare that if I have seen further it is by paying my proper license fees to stand on the shoulders of giants."
No, it doesn't. It is sufficient to look how the data is used. If the call center knows your contract details when you call it, then the call center knows personal data. If the call center is in a non-EU state, this data was exported and is taxable. If it doesn't appear on the tax declaration, then the company contracting the call center is liable for tax evasion.
That's simply wrong. To tax the data, no one needs to know the actual data, it's sufficient to know how much it is. The postal service also doesn't know what's in a letter to put a price on delivery.
You got the idea. It's a disincentive for companies to have them manage personal data outside of the jurisdiction of people the data is about (which makes it nearly impossible or at least very expensive and cumbersome for said people to go to court about that data). Yes, you can still do it, but it comes at a price. And the company has to consider if it's worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
How long are business days on Mercury? As the Mercury has a very strange synchronism between its own rotation and the orbit around the Sun, the same Sun constellation on the Mercury's sky reappears every 176 earth days.
And the area of the ice shelf at the Arctis is indeed larger (my numbers say 50%, 5.1 million square kilometers in 2013 instead of 3.4 square kilometers in 2012) than the year before, but it's still less than the long term average. This is at 13.9 million square kilometers for the years 1979-2000. So while 2012 might have been an extreme minimum, we are in 2013 still far away of any normalization.
(*) Actually, the MSM7227 has four cores, but only one is available for applications. The other cores work as DSP for applications, run the GSM/UTMS stack or work as DSP for the telephony subsystem.
Actually, with Stradivari violins, there is a twist: There was a blind comparision with a Stradivari, an off-the-shelf violin and a violin made from plastics, and the preferences of the professional listeners were quite evenly distributed. It seems as if there is some kind of placebo effect at work here: just knowing that you are listening to someone playing a Stradivari (who nearly invariably is someone who is very good at playing the violin) adds to the listening pleasure.
When do we start the War On Fishponds?
Of course there is room for improvement, and sometimes, handing over services to private businesses actually improves the services, but the examples of successful transitions of governmental services into private hands are few (many of them are state owned telephony monopolies, and thus don't apply to the U.S. anyway), while the number of failures is high (Think: PGE, think British Railways, think private prison system...).
In many cases, the privatization of governmental services was sold under the promise of "more market freedom", while the real motivation was to create an opportunity to turn over tax money to private enterprises (a.k.a. subventions) and for a short time shedding of governmental fiscal discipline because of the money from the sale. Privatization of governmental services was thus one of the biggest redistributions of wealth from the many to the few.
Something that often gets lost in a dispute about freedom is that it's never the human alone who is free (except he is really alone and no one in his vincinity), it's always the organisation of the humans into groups and relationships that gives various degrees of freedom.
This might work only for the first generation of those policies. If a certain type of policies is known to yield huge profits because of over-estimations, then everyone will try to enter this market, and prices start to drop. Getting your predictions right (if only for internal reports) is an actual market advantage no insurance company will give up. So yes, if insurance companies bet on global warming, it is highly probable that it is because their statisticians tell them that it is happening right now. It is surely not to please some grant-oogling scientists and some power greedy group of politicians to get their goodwill.
Not exactly. Over-predicting claims means that your policies will be more expensive than that of the competition, thus leaving you selling less policies. You actually have to predict it right at first, and then you can start to manipulate the prices until they fit your profit expectations.
You can only practice Art for a living, if someone agrees to finance your living. There are several models for that: patronage, entrance fees, taxes (which are governmental patronage), sponsored competitions which hand out prizes...
Because also a shill can be factually correct?
So your base assumption is wrong.
But I am sure if someone spying in the U.S. for Brazil gets caught, no one in the U.S. administration will go in froint of the press and state: "It's ok. Every country with any international dealings has an espionage agency."
So what you are saying is purely and utterly missing the point.
And "the others do it too" was never a valid excuse for any misdeeds. You don't believe it? Try it the next time you get caught speeding.
Oh, it's more complicated, but yes, Brazil had a nuclear weapons program, the Parallel Program, and it only got stopped when the civilian government took over, but they restarted enrichment again in 2006.
Brazil had nukes once, and I don't think they forgot how to make them. They just disbanded them when the military junta wanted to get "development help" in return.
You were saying? NSA spies caught spying on Brazil should be shot?
And in both places you can be murdered for being a Muslim. So what?
I am not naive, but I guess here we have two conflicting interests: One is the finance side, which wants to collect as much money as seamlessly as possible, and then there is the law inforcement side, which likes to go on fishing expeditions. The finance side wants the companies to either report as many as possible data exports or alternatively process data at home creating taxable jobs. For this, it doesn't want to make moving data a hassle to anyone, while law enforcement prefers as much as possible insight into the actual data. Given how cash strapped most governments are, I guess, finance will win.
And countries which detect other countries spying on them, consider it illegal and prosecute the spies they can get hold of.
Actually, it would have been: "As I am licensed by the Bertrand of Chartres Heritage Trust to quote him, I hereby declare that if I have seen further it is by paying my proper license fees to stand on the shoulders of giants."
Luckily those clauses are invalid in the countries I live.
No, it doesn't. It is sufficient to look how the data is used. If the call center knows your contract details when you call it, then the call center knows personal data. If the call center is in a non-EU state, this data was exported and is taxable. If it doesn't appear on the tax declaration, then the company contracting the call center is liable for tax evasion.
That's simply wrong. To tax the data, no one needs to know the actual data, it's sufficient to know how much it is. The postal service also doesn't know what's in a letter to put a price on delivery.
You got the idea. It's a disincentive for companies to have them manage personal data outside of the jurisdiction of people the data is about (which makes it nearly impossible or at least very expensive and cumbersome for said people to go to court about that data). Yes, you can still do it, but it comes at a price. And the company has to consider if it's worth it.
For some reason, the solar wind blows in the wrong direction, and without a keel, you can't beat (e.g. sail against the wind direction).