Now what if some species has sent us a container of bios mass...and it just hasn't arrived yet? Or perhaps they did some 750,000 years ago...
Love your (perhaps unintentional) typo.
Brings the wonderful image of aliens sending nanomachines to take over the indigent population and begin setting up shop for their arrival. Somewhat like the crab parasites described in "Parasite Rex", which destroy and replace the crab's testicles with their own self-propagating machinery, and "wire up" the crab and take over its movements to suit their own purposes.
Like smallpox blankets, but on a planetary scale, and with intelligent blankets.
The United States Government is saying "we're going to create these standards and you are going to pay to implement them" [...]
Excuse me, but isn't that the way it always works? The Federal Government doesn't have an income stream separate[1] from the taxes it levies on the citizens of each state... In other words, if they had said "we're going to create these standards and we're going to pay to implement them" it would rather quickly be followed by "and this increase in taxes collected from each state is how."
[1] -- Well, I suppose there's also taxes on residents of Washington DC, which isn't in any state; and Puerto Rico and other territories; and tariffs levied against foreign imports -- but for the most part it comes from the citizens (and, now I'm just making shit up; I guess there's a.gov site that will tell the truth).
it could be that you can't send messages back any earlier than the time the message was created, effectively only slowing time down so it take less time for the message to arrive. Less time could be no time at all so the message arrives when it's sent.
This won't allow you to send messages 'back' in time though.
Excellent! Then John Cusack wouldn't need an empty room "full of computers" to insert the 7-second delay for a financial transaction to cross the Atlantic!
Acting on information that's only slightly faster (milliseconds, most likely, and this doesn't include the time it would take to encode the message and "spin up" the communications device) might be a bit more difficult...
I've been interested in trying out VectorVest for a few years now. Anyone have any actual experience with it? Their marketing shows great returns, 90% a year.
"You know, when I campaigned here in 2000, I said, I want to be a war President. No President wants to be a war President, but I am one." --George W. Bush, Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 26, 2006
You're right in that I should not have chosen the first link I found; however, my faulty organic memory was, in this case at least, spot-on. Thanks for calling me on that though, sometimes I make mistakes.
Otherwise, all you do is make yourself look like a fool and alienate yourself from the rest of the world, including people who used to be strong proponants of the community until it started acting more and more like this.
This is all about denying the customer the ability to watch TV through anything other than a cable co device, it's just paying lip service to the law so that they're not obviously in violation of it.
This is slightly OT, but I'd like to share some feedback that I just sent off to Pricewatch.com when I noticed something fishy; I wrote this about half an hour ago, and used similar language to the above when describing a sleazy business practice of one of their advertisers.
The other reason to post this is to inform others, as I've been seeing the evidence of this for a few months without realizing what was really up. So, here it is.
Recently, I've noticed that some categories don't have a lowest price listed, but I've never clicked on them.
Tonight, one of the ones I was interested in had no lowest price (500 GB SATA hard drives). Turns out that Memorylabs.com *does* have the lowest price, $99, but the item is "Currently Not Available" which is apparently why the lowest price isn't listed on the previous page; the lowest price I can purchase it for at this moment is actually $106.98 from Ascendtech Inc.
A feature request, then, would be to *not* list items that aren't available. I can't purchase it, so why should I a) waste my brainpower looking at it, and b) not be able to see the actual lowest price I can *really* purchase the item for in the "Hard drive filter" list?
There are many "Hard Drive filters" that are blank for the lowest price. Memorylabs.com accounts for about 90% of them; ComputerHQ.com has a few of them.
These companies appear to be "gaming the system" and I would not be upset if you removed them as vendors, because all they're doing is adding to the noise level, and making your site less useful. And they're attempting to set up a "memory response" in your users, since they're at the top of every list, but it feels exactly like a brick-and-mortar company advertising a sale but only having two of those items (they legitimately had a sale, so can't be sued for fraud); then, when a customer comes to the store the customer has already invested the gas and travel time, and may choose to purchase something more expensive rather than "wasting" that investment.
However, the "memory response" for this user will simply be "I will never do business with these vendors."
I've been using this site for research for as long as I can remember, at least 10 years I think, and I don't like to see the quality go downhill. Banning these vendors (and any others which are consistently at the top of the list but "sold out", which should be a fairly easy SQL query) seems like a good step to maintain quality.
Or, just modify the query so that it only returns results that *are* available. Or a combination of both, to let them know that you're on to them and this type of tomfoolery won't be tolerated.
If a child it taught to be freaked out about nudity it teaches them to hate themselves and their sexuality as well as causes a crap load of social and mental problems in them as an adult. It was proven that puritan lifestyle is detrimental yet idiots in this country force it upon everyone they can.
That is what is truly sad.
I am truly grateful to whoever it is that put the MGM bill in their signature. I would not have known about it otherwise, and started asking questions like, why is this still done? What would sex be like if I had those extra ten to twenty thousand nerve endings? Why would doctors go to jail if they mutilated a female infant's genitalia, but boys are fair game?
You hit the nail on the head: this country was founded by a bunch of Puritans, who mostly hated themselves and their sexuality.
I mean, c'mon, "it's tough to clean so we should remove it" -- it's also tough to clean behind the ears, but advance the idea that we should cut off our children's ears to keep them clean and it would be ridiculed like the absurd proposition it is. But instead they fall back on religion to continue their campaign of scarring the helpless for life.
I agree with you. It is truly sad that Congress can raise a shitstorm and pass laws banning the Internet, but can't be bothered to pass laws banning monsters with knives. The latter most definitely affects our children, whereas the former is questionable at best.
Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to be sufficiently self-aware to spend the rest of his days agonizing over the fact that he's been such an abysmal failure.
His record, as president, matches perfectly his business record.
The thing that scares me the most is I vaguelyrecall him saying something like, "I want to preside over the Rapture prophesied in Revelations" (which of course requires an Armageddon), and forcing Russia to change the direction their nukes are pointing seems like a good first step down the road to Hell for all of us.
I definitely remember him saying, "I want to be a war president."
(Holy fuck, when I started this I didn't realize that I'd find so much evidence to link to. Wow.)
Quite to the contrary: a compassionate society wouldn't try to hide suffering and death under a blanket of silence.
You know, I completely agree. At the risk of going off topic, it is rather shocking that the Bush administration was able to censor images of caskets coming back from our wars on two fronts. First, they embedded journalists so they could "show off" to US citizens how amazing our military capabilities are. And then, only allow us to see one side of those capabilities?
There should be severe penalties for abusing the legal system; however, it seems the biggest abusers are also those who either write the laws, or pay for the laws.
Did someone take money to allow poor construction?
Seeing as how the car was completely stopped by the barrier, no, I doubt poor construction was involved. Well, it may have been constructed by the poor, but that's just wordplay...
...to invest heavily into Put-options of SCO. Then again, with them already listing in the penny-stock area, maybe rather invest in the spam companies that send out the pump'n'dump mails...
Good recovery. You do of course realize that being OTC means that investors can neither short, nor trade options on the underlying security. So, good joke.;-)
Retroactive laws are prohibited in the US by the constitution, IIRC.
As another poster mentioned, this generally only applies to criminal law. In fact, I myself recall a retroactive tax being levied back in the days of the Clinton administration. It was June I believe, and the tax applied to the beginning of that year. 1995, perhaps?
Not only has President Clinton failed to defend the prohibition of ex post facto laws; he encouraged the 103rd Congress to violate the prohibition. In the summer of 1993 he urged Congress to levy a retroactive tax on the American people. Under the president's initial budget plan, income, corporate, gift, and estate taxes were to be increased retroactively to January 1, 1993--20 days before the president assumed office. Never before in American history had a tax been made retroactive to the time of a prior administration.
The last sentence's specificity seems to indicate that previous taxes have been made retroactive--merely, within that existing administration's time period.
Slashdot Mirror
Love your (perhaps unintentional) typo.
Brings the wonderful image of aliens sending nanomachines to take over the indigent population and begin setting up shop for their arrival. Somewhat like the crab parasites described in "Parasite Rex", which destroy and replace the crab's testicles with their own self-propagating machinery, and "wire up" the crab and take over its movements to suit their own purposes.
Like smallpox blankets, but on a planetary scale, and with intelligent blankets.
That makes sense. Thanks!
Excuse me, but isn't that the way it always works? The Federal Government doesn't have an income stream separate[1] from the taxes it levies on the citizens of each state... In other words, if they had said "we're going to create these standards and we're going to pay to implement them" it would rather quickly be followed by "and this increase in taxes collected from each state is how."
[1] -- Well, I suppose there's also taxes on residents of Washington DC, which isn't in any state; and Puerto Rico and other territories; and tariffs levied against foreign imports -- but for the most part it comes from the citizens (and, now I'm just making shit up; I guess there's a .gov site that will tell the truth).
Excellent! Then John Cusack wouldn't need an empty room "full of computers" to insert the 7-second delay for a financial transaction to cross the Atlantic!
Acting on information that's only slightly faster (milliseconds, most likely, and this doesn't include the time it would take to encode the message and "spin up" the communications device) might be a bit more difficult...
I've been interested in trying out VectorVest for a few years now. Anyone have any actual experience with it? Their marketing shows great returns, 90% a year.
No, I'll do it for you:
You're right in that I should not have chosen the first link I found; however, my faulty organic memory was, in this case at least, spot-on. Thanks for calling me on that though, sometimes I make mistakes.
You're welcome :)
My favorite quote regarding this:
Hmm, with GTs, I guess?
Please people, please: use IMNAL. We're not interested in your bedroom behavior.
This is slightly OT, but I'd like to share some feedback that I just sent off to Pricewatch.com when I noticed something fishy; I wrote this about half an hour ago, and used similar language to the above when describing a sleazy business practice of one of their advertisers.
The other reason to post this is to inform others, as I've been seeing the evidence of this for a few months without realizing what was really up. So, here it is.
Recently, I've noticed that some categories don't have a lowest price listed, but I've never clicked on them.
Tonight, one of the ones I was interested in had no lowest price (500 GB SATA hard drives). Turns out that Memorylabs.com *does* have the lowest price, $99, but the item is "Currently Not Available" which is apparently why the lowest price isn't listed on the previous page; the lowest price I can purchase it for at this moment is actually $106.98 from Ascendtech Inc.
A feature request, then, would be to *not* list items that aren't available. I can't purchase it, so why should I a) waste my brainpower looking at it, and b) not be able to see the actual lowest price I can *really* purchase the item for in the "Hard drive filter" list?
There are many "Hard Drive filters" that are blank for the lowest price. Memorylabs.com accounts for about 90% of them; ComputerHQ.com has a few of them.
These companies appear to be "gaming the system" and I would not be upset if you removed them as vendors, because all they're doing is adding to the noise level, and making your site less useful. And they're attempting to set up a "memory response" in your users, since they're at the top of every list, but it feels exactly like a brick-and-mortar company advertising a sale but only having two of those items (they legitimately had a sale, so can't be sued for fraud); then, when a customer comes to the store the customer has already invested the gas and travel time, and may choose to purchase something more expensive rather than "wasting" that investment.
However, the "memory response" for this user will simply be "I will never do business with these vendors."
I've been using this site for research for as long as I can remember, at least 10 years I think, and I don't like to see the quality go downhill. Banning these vendors (and any others which are consistently at the top of the list but "sold out", which should be a fairly easy SQL query) seems like a good step to maintain quality.
Or, just modify the query so that it only returns results that *are* available. Or a combination of both, to let them know that you're on to them and this type of tomfoolery won't be tolerated.
Sincerely,
[Name and email address]
Ha! Life is a pre-existing condition. Pay through the nose. Next!
I am truly grateful to whoever it is that put the MGM bill in their signature. I would not have known about it otherwise, and started asking questions like, why is this still done? What would sex be like if I had those extra ten to twenty thousand nerve endings? Why would doctors go to jail if they mutilated a female infant's genitalia, but boys are fair game?
You hit the nail on the head: this country was founded by a bunch of Puritans, who mostly hated themselves and their sexuality.
I mean, c'mon, "it's tough to clean so we should remove it" -- it's also tough to clean behind the ears, but advance the idea that we should cut off our children's ears to keep them clean and it would be ridiculed like the absurd proposition it is. But instead they fall back on religion to continue their campaign of scarring the helpless for life.
I agree with you. It is truly sad that Congress can raise a shitstorm and pass laws banning the Internet, but can't be bothered to pass laws banning monsters with knives. The latter most definitely affects our children, whereas the former is questionable at best.
What, like, 17 of them?
His record, as president, matches perfectly his business record.
The thing that scares me the most is I vaguely recall him saying something like, "I want to preside over the Rapture prophesied in Revelations" (which of course requires an Armageddon), and forcing Russia to change the direction their nukes are pointing seems like a good first step down the road to Hell for all of us.
I definitely remember him saying, "I want to be a war president."
(Holy fuck, when I started this I didn't realize that I'd find so much evidence to link to. Wow.)
yst?
Hey, two out of three ain't bad...
Good luck with that, Circuit City...
You know, I completely agree. At the risk of going off topic, it is rather shocking that the Bush administration was able to censor images of caskets coming back from our wars on two fronts. First, they embedded journalists so they could "show off" to US citizens how amazing our military capabilities are. And then, only allow us to see one side of those capabilities?
There should be severe penalties for abusing the legal system; however, it seems the biggest abusers are also those who either write the laws, or pay for the laws.
Seeing as how the car was completely stopped by the barrier, no, I doubt poor construction was involved. Well, it may have been constructed by the poor, but that's just wordplay...
Fixed it for you. (The risk is of legal consequences, now.)
I completely agree about medical insurance, though. And all other optional forms of insurance.
Sure you can! Just stop breathing...
Oh.
Good recovery. You do of course realize that being OTC means that investors can neither short, nor trade options on the underlying security. So, good joke. ;-)
What's to stop them from absconding with it immediately after having killed you?
(My point is your fingers will still be warm.)
As another poster mentioned, this generally only applies to criminal law. In fact, I myself recall a retroactive tax being levied back in the days of the Clinton administration. It was June I believe, and the tax applied to the beginning of that year. 1995, perhaps?
Nope, late summer 1993:
The last sentence's specificity seems to indicate that previous taxes have been made retroactive--merely, within that existing administration's time period.