Perhaps we're getting to the point: Why the FUCK does a supposedly self-sufficient company have to ask anyone how to run their FUCKING business?! As long as they dot their constitutionally mandated job, can't everyone else fuck off? Seriously.
The kids these days, until you spell everything out they can't figure it out, sigh. Well duh Sherlock, you nailed it, we need to amend the constitution. Bravo. It's not the only thing there that needs amending, BTW...
Without a monopoly, USPS can compete or they can cease to exist. There would be no more requirement for USPS to exist, much less deliver mail anywhere.
It's otherwise called the cost of living. If you can't afford living there, well, don't. I don't think that the delivery of mail is really something that the government should be mucking about with.
USPS provides a great value -- just think about it, for about half a dollar you can get your first class letter delivered almost anywhere in the U.S. Alas, they are burdened with costs that other enterprises don't share, and their very existence seems to be against the flow so to speak. I think it's time to abolish the U.S. Mail monopoly and let it compete on a fair playing ground. If you didn't know, U.S. Mail has a legally granted monopoly. It's illegal for anyone but a postman to drop mail into postboxes marked U.S. Mail, and if your postbox is not marked, then the postman is obligated not to deliver mail in it. When U.S. Postal Service (however they were called back then) was starting up, they did actually have competition, and that competition was providing better service, apparently. The competitor got killed when USPS got granted the monopoly. I think we should see a return of healthy competition once the USPS monopoly ends. There's no reason for it.
Yep. In plenty of jurisdictions your traffic tickets become more expensive if you had any tickets within a certain amount of time. Say $25 extra if there was one ticket in the last 12 months, or a mandatory court appearance for 2+ tickets.
Yeah, I didn't spend every minute on education, but then my hobbies weren't placed on a pedestal either, they simply were contributing to my graduate work directly, that's all. As for graduation rates: that's IMHO the most improperly used number ever. So what that student athletes have higher graduation rates. If you read the article you linked to, you'll see that there are good arguments why NCAA's pitch is factual but misses important factors that, when taken into account, make the pitch mostly irrelevant.
They shouldn't have been encouraged to apply their, um, perseverance to sports in the first place. It's a waste of time. When you start in college and you've already done something in your field, even if it was just a hobby, that's a big head-start. Spending that time doing sports as something to get your foot into college is just being irresponsible IMHO. I don't care if kids do sports recreationally, but it's like playing chess. It shouldn't be getting you into college or anywhere else. They're supposed to work on their academics or, I dunno, even "coding php" would be time better spent.
I know that reasoning and logic are perhaps less in popular demand these days, but man, if you get same effect with a lower dose, that means to me that you need to be more careful. I don't know what others make of it, and I don't care.
Why the heck would I care, as an employer other than a sports team, or a college admissions counselor, that someone was good at sports? I care that they are good at science or art or engineering or medicine or business or whatever their education will be in, or their job will be in. Yeah, the kiddo is a good team player. So what. He's a good team player who wouldn't know a Newton's law from Declaration of Independence. Collegiate sports are based on a false premise, pure and simple. Yeah, there are notable individuals who happened to be good at whatever else they were supposed to be good at in the first place, and they happened to be good at sports as their chosen hobby. Why the heck is the sport hobby placed on a pedestal and enjoying the limelight?
Whatever you learn playing sports can be learned doing whatever it is that you're supposed to be doing in the first place. So that argument doesn't fly with me. It's a diversion of precious time, pure and simple, never mind a cost on the various college medical insurance programs. Football isn't really a low-risk, low-injury thing.
As for socioeconomically disadvantaged people: hey, someone organizes their sports activities. It's rare that they'd be coming straight from their neighborhood court ready to rake in athletic scholarships. Every minute spent working with those kids teaching them sports should be spent, instead, teaching them things that actually pay the bills in out-of-school-life. Even teaching them art would be IMHO time better spent.
Man, I would have thought it quite obvious that if you're putting stuff into an area with "direct" access to circulation, you need to be fucking careful. Dr_Barnowl is perfectly informative in this respect.
I think we're all missing the elephant in the room. What the fuck has college got to do with sports? As far as I'm concerned, the sports scholarhips should be abandoned, and large-audience college sports banned. College is there to teach people things, not to entertain the masses. Professional sports are professional entertainment. It's no business of any college to offer that. I'm well aware of the U.S. reality where college sports attract donors and shit, but perhaps people should get a long hard look in the mirror and realize it's all stupid beyond belief. Why on Earth would I offer a scholarship for someone who, ostensibly, diverts their time to things *other* than pursuit of knowledge (namely: sports)?! Scholarships should be for kids who, I dunno, are good at learning things, doing resarch, that sort of thing? Maybe? Sigh.
So, I gather you've never actually done it, then:) The "look at and pause a bit" thing is generally speaking a pipe dream. Our visual system doesn't work that way. Once you have other input devices available, eye movement quickly becomes unnecessary. It's only useful as the last recourse.
Do recall that our eye's area of highest resolution is a couple degrees across. The real "pointing error" when using eye movements, assuming no errors from the eye tracker at all (pipe dream too), is bound within +/- 5 degrees. The distribution has a peak, but for practical purposes must be assumed to be uniform, since you have to cope with mispointings even if they are a bit less frequent than pefect pointings. Never mind that if there's anything even remotely new and interesting, or changing, on the display, it will often redirect your gaze no matter what you "want" to do, since gaze redirection is usually not a conscious process. When you're pointing with your eyes, the display must be frozen. It's a pain in the ass and only useful if you're severely disabled and can't move anything but your eyes (ALS comes to mind).
There was a download of a modern reimplementation running in a browser, done by Ivan's collaborators, but I've lost the links and couldn't find it merely looking around for stuff with Ivan's name on it:(
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, because obviously the companies who send the bills out won't ever hear of it, and won't ever adjust their practices. Uh huh, sure.
Perhaps we're getting to the point: Why the FUCK does a supposedly self-sufficient company have to ask anyone how to run their FUCKING business?! As long as they dot their constitutionally mandated job, can't everyone else fuck off? Seriously.
The kids these days, until you spell everything out they can't figure it out, sigh. Well duh Sherlock, you nailed it, we need to amend the constitution. Bravo. It's not the only thing there that needs amending, BTW...
That's demonstrably false. You do know that USPS used to have a competitor back when the country was, relatively speaking, much bigger than it is now?
The price structure for UPS and FedEx would start changing very soon after USPS would lose its monopolist status.
Without a monopoly, USPS can compete or they can cease to exist. There would be no more requirement for USPS to exist, much less deliver mail anywhere.
It's otherwise called the cost of living. If you can't afford living there, well, don't. I don't think that the delivery of mail is really something that the government should be mucking about with.
Without the monopoly, USPS needs to run on a balanced budget, or else they go bankrupt. Easy.
Most likely: the firmware is outsourced, and the outsources implements it to the letter, without applying any thinking.
Man, if you only knew what ships out there...
USPS provides a great value -- just think about it, for about half a dollar you can get your first class letter delivered almost anywhere in the U.S. Alas, they are burdened with costs that other enterprises don't share, and their very existence seems to be against the flow so to speak. I think it's time to abolish the U.S. Mail monopoly and let it compete on a fair playing ground. If you didn't know, U.S. Mail has a legally granted monopoly. It's illegal for anyone but a postman to drop mail into postboxes marked U.S. Mail, and if your postbox is not marked, then the postman is obligated not to deliver mail in it. When U.S. Postal Service (however they were called back then) was starting up, they did actually have competition, and that competition was providing better service, apparently. The competitor got killed when USPS got granted the monopoly. I think we should see a return of healthy competition once the USPS monopoly ends. There's no reason for it.
Yep. In plenty of jurisdictions your traffic tickets become more expensive if you had any tickets within a certain amount of time. Say $25 extra if there was one ticket in the last 12 months, or a mandatory court appearance for 2+ tickets.
Yeah, I didn't spend every minute on education, but then my hobbies weren't placed on a pedestal either, they simply were contributing to my graduate work directly, that's all. As for graduation rates: that's IMHO the most improperly used number ever. So what that student athletes have higher graduation rates. If you read the article you linked to, you'll see that there are good arguments why NCAA's pitch is factual but misses important factors that, when taken into account, make the pitch mostly irrelevant.
They shouldn't have been encouraged to apply their, um, perseverance to sports in the first place. It's a waste of time. When you start in college and you've already done something in your field, even if it was just a hobby, that's a big head-start. Spending that time doing sports as something to get your foot into college is just being irresponsible IMHO. I don't care if kids do sports recreationally, but it's like playing chess. It shouldn't be getting you into college or anywhere else. They're supposed to work on their academics or, I dunno, even "coding php" would be time better spent.
I know that reasoning and logic are perhaps less in popular demand these days, but man, if you get same effect with a lower dose, that means to me that you need to be more careful. I don't know what others make of it, and I don't care.
Why the heck would I care, as an employer other than a sports team, or a college admissions counselor, that someone was good at sports? I care that they are good at science or art or engineering or medicine or business or whatever their education will be in, or their job will be in. Yeah, the kiddo is a good team player. So what. He's a good team player who wouldn't know a Newton's law from Declaration of Independence. Collegiate sports are based on a false premise, pure and simple. Yeah, there are notable individuals who happened to be good at whatever else they were supposed to be good at in the first place, and they happened to be good at sports as their chosen hobby. Why the heck is the sport hobby placed on a pedestal and enjoying the limelight?
Whatever you learn playing sports can be learned doing whatever it is that you're supposed to be doing in the first place. So that argument doesn't fly with me. It's a diversion of precious time, pure and simple, never mind a cost on the various college medical insurance programs. Football isn't really a low-risk, low-injury thing.
As for socioeconomically disadvantaged people: hey, someone organizes their sports activities. It's rare that they'd be coming straight from their neighborhood court ready to rake in athletic scholarships. Every minute spent working with those kids teaching them sports should be spent, instead, teaching them things that actually pay the bills in out-of-school-life. Even teaching them art would be IMHO time better spent.
You mean twosat? Did you bother reading the links? It's true.
Man, I would have thought it quite obvious that if you're putting stuff into an area with "direct" access to circulation, you need to be fucking careful. Dr_Barnowl is perfectly informative in this respect.
I think we're all missing the elephant in the room. What the fuck has college got to do with sports? As far as I'm concerned, the sports scholarhips should be abandoned, and large-audience college sports banned. College is there to teach people things, not to entertain the masses. Professional sports are professional entertainment. It's no business of any college to offer that. I'm well aware of the U.S. reality where college sports attract donors and shit, but perhaps people should get a long hard look in the mirror and realize it's all stupid beyond belief. Why on Earth would I offer a scholarship for someone who, ostensibly, diverts their time to things *other* than pursuit of knowledge (namely: sports)?! Scholarships should be for kids who, I dunno, are good at learning things, doing resarch, that sort of thing? Maybe? Sigh.
It's plenty enough. For a $3b they could be making all of their displays and glass. For another $10b they can have a state of the art fab.
So, I gather you've never actually done it, then :) The "look at and pause a bit" thing is generally speaking a pipe dream. Our visual system doesn't work that way. Once you have other input devices available, eye movement quickly becomes unnecessary. It's only useful as the last recourse.
Do recall that our eye's area of highest resolution is a couple degrees across. The real "pointing error" when using eye movements, assuming no errors from the eye tracker at all (pipe dream too), is bound within +/- 5 degrees. The distribution has a peak, but for practical purposes must be assumed to be uniform, since you have to cope with mispointings even if they are a bit less frequent than pefect pointings. Never mind that if there's anything even remotely new and interesting, or changing, on the display, it will often redirect your gaze no matter what you "want" to do, since gaze redirection is usually not a conscious process. When you're pointing with your eyes, the display must be frozen. It's a pain in the ass and only useful if you're severely disabled and can't move anything but your eyes (ALS comes to mind).
Apple may need to do what SpaceX did from day 1: everything is done in house.
There was a download of a modern reimplementation running in a browser, done by Ivan's collaborators, but I've lost the links and couldn't find it merely looking around for stuff with Ivan's name on it :(
Anecdote: My grandma, as a professor, was going to the university department meetings well into her 70s.