Yeah, in 1824 the Imperial system was brought into play, replacing the Queen Anne system. Since that was after the US broke away, we didn't follow along in that changeover. I'm pretty sure the saying dates from before that.
A cup is supposed to be well defined - 8 fluid ounces, or the volume of 8 ounces (mass) of water. Two cups is a pint, which is the volume of 16 ounces (one pound) of water, hence the saying "a pint's a pound the world 'round".
At some time in the past it was probably the way you describe, much as the foot or cubit was determined by whoever was around. But for as far back as I can remember they've had objective definitions.
usually, yes, but the quoted requirement under discussion was "must be born in the US to apply". Whether that's actually an accurate word for word quote or a paraphrase I don't know, but as written, it's problematic.
It's not enough to stabilize at current levels, but it can still stabilize at a lower number, once the elderly have passed on. The time between now and then will still be unpleasant, for all the reasons you mention, but it's not necessarily inevitable doom.
I had thought that children of US citizens born outside the country were still "native born" for legal purposes. But the point was that they are technically not "born in the USA", so would theoretically be ineligible for those jobs.
by the same token, if rents in the area drop, they're going to have to lower what they charge even if it's now less than the mortgage. Unless they want to move back in, or let it sit empty (which is worse in many ways than just having a rent shortfall)...
You're assuming they had to log in to access the information in question. The impression I had was that they were accessing data that didn't require a login. The materials I've found are not extremely clear on that point, but it does specify that hi-Q was accessing the publicly available portions of LinkedIn's site, which to me implies that it's the parts that don't need a login.
If a login was required to get to the data then I agree with you, but I don't think it was.
arguably, the need for a coalition and the fragility are features, not defects. Everyone talks about wanting less regulation, about "The best government is that which governs least", but nobody really appreciates the value of deadlock and disfunctionality in keeping a solid unified group from running roughshod over a nation.
you should go ahead and be mad at the landlord for not providing itemization. I suppose if you haven't asked about itemization yet they could get a pass but if the numbers change I would think they should tell you.
if you're paying in 4 separate transactions, that's what they get billed by Visa/MC. If they aggregate it and hit your card just once, then yes, the 3 extra 34 cents are kind of bogus.
Ah, I see what you mean. No, an exhaustive search algorithm isn't what I'd call "intelligent". But an exhaustive search for chess would take a lot longer than a few hours, and a process that develops some sense of "this move will be bad" without having to try it every single time does seem, while not necessarily "intelligent", to be at least one step up from brute force, because it is making decisions based on, well, not unknown values of variables (not much in chess is invisible) but on situations not quite the same as what's been seen before.
Well, the program playing itself is not really qualitatively different than "if I do this, and he does that, and I do the other, and he does........ then I win!"; it's just carried out to more steps than a human would (because a human can't go that far). Therefore, any approach I can conceive of to go from knowing the rules to knowing how to win is pretty much equivalent to "running some iterations". Even the ability of human chess masters to perceive the board as a pattern instead of just a bunch of individual piece positions is probably approximated by something in the program.
Given that, I am unable to come up with a mechanism to go from "knows the rules" to "knows how to win a game" without doing something equivalent to "running iterations"...
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, in 1824 the Imperial system was brought into play, replacing the Queen Anne system. Since that was after the US broke away, we didn't follow along in that changeover. I'm pretty sure the saying dates from before that.
well, until you specify what's in the brine, the freezing point is still not well defined...
A cup is supposed to be well defined - 8 fluid ounces, or the volume of 8 ounces (mass) of water. Two cups is a pint, which is the volume of 16 ounces (one pound) of water, hence the saying "a pint's a pound the world 'round".
At some time in the past it was probably the way you describe, much as the foot or cubit was determined by whoever was around. But for as far back as I can remember they've had objective definitions.
subsidized how? You did see the "no taxpayer funding" part, right? Their revenue comes from postage.
usually, yes, but the quoted requirement under discussion was "must be born in the US to apply". Whether that's actually an accurate word for word quote or a paraphrase I don't know, but as written, it's problematic.
It's not enough to stabilize at current levels, but it can still stabilize at a lower number, once the elderly have passed on. The time between now and then will still be unpleasant, for all the reasons you mention, but it's not necessarily inevitable doom.
I had thought that children of US citizens born outside the country were still "native born" for legal purposes. But the point was that they are technically not "born in the USA", so would theoretically be ineligible for those jobs.
by the same token, if rents in the area drop, they're going to have to lower what they charge even if it's now less than the mortgage. Unless they want to move back in, or let it sit empty (which is worse in many ways than just having a rent shortfall)...
since they're naming the guide they're writing "Motherboard Guide to Building an ISP" i think they realize it better than you think.
You're assuming they had to log in to access the information in question. The impression I had was that they were accessing data that didn't require a login. The materials I've found are not extremely clear on that point, but it does specify that hi-Q was accessing the publicly available portions of LinkedIn's site, which to me implies that it's the parts that don't need a login.
If a login was required to get to the data then I agree with you, but I don't think it was.
I would think that would make the criminals feel much safer.
arguably, the need for a coalition and the fragility are features, not defects. Everyone talks about wanting less regulation, about "The best government is that which governs least", but nobody really appreciates the value of deadlock and disfunctionality in keeping a solid unified group from running roughshod over a nation.
I have yet to see a definition of NN that more than 2 people agreed on. Yours appears to differ from mine.
They still have a page. It doesn't say what it used to. They removed "Comcast doesn't prioritize Internet traffic or create paid fast lanes."
perhaps it should be "treating IT as an easily-trimmable cost center"
you should go ahead and be mad at the landlord for not providing itemization. I suppose if you haven't asked about itemization yet they could get a pass but if the numbers change I would think they should tell you.
It's not the 2% (actually 2.9 iirc, call it 3), it's the 35 cents per. If it was just 3% and nothing else, I doubt anyone would be stressed.
yeah, that's some BS. Hopefully they'll figure that out and change it. Thanks for the info :)
if you're paying in 4 separate transactions, that's what they get billed by Visa/MC. If they aggregate it and hit your card just once, then yes, the 3 extra 34 cents are kind of bogus.
Ah, I see what you mean. No, an exhaustive search algorithm isn't what I'd call "intelligent". But an exhaustive search for chess would take a lot longer than a few hours, and a process that develops some sense of "this move will be bad" without having to try it every single time does seem, while not necessarily "intelligent", to be at least one step up from brute force, because it is making decisions based on, well, not unknown values of variables (not much in chess is invisible) but on situations not quite the same as what's been seen before.
Ah, you're defining justify differently than I. Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying :)
Well, the program playing itself is not really qualitatively different than "if I do this, and he does that, and I do the other, and he does........ then I win!"; it's just carried out to more steps than a human would (because a human can't go that far). Therefore, any approach I can conceive of to go from knowing the rules to knowing how to win is pretty much equivalent to "running some iterations". Even the ability of human chess masters to perceive the board as a pattern instead of just a bunch of individual piece positions is probably approximated by something in the program.
Given that, I am unable to come up with a mechanism to go from "knows the rules" to "knows how to win a game" without doing something equivalent to "running iterations"...
Okay, so the end of reaching my job does not justify the means of driving 25 miles; the means must stand on its own.
So what's my reason for getting on the road again?
I think you could have stopped that one at "Big corporations want free markets".
and now we have the worst of both worlds - last mile monopolies, and no protection from them.