No public insurance companies sell flood insurance anywhere. The only flood insurance provider in the US is the US Government. It's not a model that works for a for-profit insurance company, since only people who live in flood-prone areas will ever buy the insurance.
Whether this is good or bad will depend on your personal political viewpoint; I make no statement either way.
It's not strictly true that "no public insurance companies sell flood insurance" but you're generally right, it's not like a traditional insurance model because of the federal legislation regarding flood insurance requirements and the involvement of FEMA. From the page linked here: "Today, flood insurance is available in more than 20,000 communities and U.S. territories and there are about 100 private insurance companies nationally that offer flood insurance backed by the government. Although federal assistance is still a vital part of disaster recovery, the NFIP saves the United States taxpayer millions of dollars every year."
According the the Deputy Mayor for Operations, nothing was overbilled.
The reason these giant IT projects almost always cost more than the original bid is that the purchasing entity (NYC in this case) frequently either hides or isn't aware of some of the items that will affect the cost.
In a bad economic environment, this means there's ALWAYS someone saying "that company screwed this system up, delivered late, overbudget, and violated the terms of the contract!" Sometimes it's true that the contractor screwed up, but frequently the purchaser makes it impossible to deliver according to original cost projections.
Yikes; said that last part backward. Should have been:
"Therefore, most insurance companies will (maybe already do) refuse to write flood insurance policies in NC. The only way people would be able to get flood insurance is through a public pool (huh-huh) backed by FEMA."
Insurance-wise, I expect this: I suspect that the law is currently that the insurance companies are only ALLOWED to consider historical flood data when formulating their rates.
Therefore, few (if any) insurance companies will (maybe already do) refuse to write flood insurance policies in NC. The only way people would be able to get flood insurance is through a public pool (huh-huh) backed by FEMA.
I look down on the vendors who are exploiting people's worst instincts, not the people who are thirsty, and happen to like soda. Many people cannot resist buying when the price looks good. The same principle causes people to make purchase decisions like "oh, that's on sale for only 2 for $1... Yeah, I'll get 2 of them, then."
I don't know if the fact that I don't buy drinks from vendors or vending machines means I'm a cheapskate, or health-conscious. However, I have learned that there's almost always a water fountain, or they'll give you a water cup for cheap.
You don't get it. This is a proposal that curbs the ability of Machiavellian vendors to profit because of people's misunderstanding of basic economics. It's a regulation of the vendors, not the buyers.
Here's how it works: Most people don't really want the oversized cup. The theaters, stadiums, etc sell it because people will pay $1 more for a larger amount that has an incremental cost for the vendor that is significantly less than selling another cup.
In other words, the vendors sell it for no other reason that it's insanely profitable to get people to pay more for something they don't need at all (but feel as if they should want because it seems like a good price for the excess amount). People see that the second 16 ounces cost significantly less than the first 16 ounces, so they feel compelled to buy it in order to get "a good deal". However, most buyers don't consider that the value to them of the second 16 ounces is close to $0, but they're paying close to $1 for it.
Completely correct, but this would do even less to solve the problem in China. China has had a problem with a lack of unique full names for quite some time. According to this, there's 100,000 people named Wang Tao. I imagine that at least a few of them are in similar fields. There's a pretty simple explanation. Basically, the 100 most common surnames are used by 85% of the population. There's only between 3000-4000 surnames currently being used at all. Compare that to the United States, which has well over 100,000 surnames in common use.
Why not solve this problem by just using the full name?
Because it wouldn't solve the problem at all. There are many researchers with the exact same full name. One reason we have Social Security numbers in the US is because full names have a strong tendency to be similar.
That said, I'm sure the Wangs can come up with a solution. huh-huh...
Not all content is TV and movies. If I recall my post correctly, I mentioned pictures, books, art, and "etc." (just in case I missed anything, see.)
Perhaps it's true, though; books, paintings, and other art aren't worth much to people anymore. What people really want is instant responses from their 100 best friends about how awesome it is that they're eating at Chili's, and modified photos of kittens talking on the phone.
My expectations for the majority of people are suitably altered.
Perhaps you've forgotten the old Slashdot slogan: "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters". This kind of stuff was on Slashdot since before I had a Slashdot user ID.
The thing that's changed on Slashdot is that there are now professional Slashdot astroturfers working for big tech companies.
Reference for US - people who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life on earth. In "Western" countries, most people appear to believe in human evolution. It appears that in the areas with strong public education and innocuous religious institutions, people tend to believe in evolution.
The data I can find is very sparse regarding belief in evolution in African and Middle-Eastern countries. (I note Turkey at that second link, and wonder if that's an indicator of beliefs in other nearby countries.)
Is evidence that even a majority of people in the world believe in evolution?
If the content creators don't fight against people (illegally) making free copies of their pictures, books, movies, art, video games, etc, then there will be very little financial incentive to create the content we enjoy because nearly everyone will just copy stuff for free.
Perhaps what people on Slashdot don't realize is that this "I want it for free, so your rights as a content create" approach won't mean that new content doesn't get made; its just that the only movies (and books, etc) you'll get will be produced in India, China, and other places with extremely cheap labor.
You may dismiss this as fantasy created by the "copyright industry", but you'll wonder what happened when every new movie you see has a Hindi song and dance number at crucial plot points.
Any president would do this, regardless of party, for the same reasons Obama is: People want it, it's entirely reasonable, it's politically inoffensive, and both parties support it.
This seems very similar to rules about not taking pictures of company stuff, not copying vast amounts of source code, designs, or other confidential stuff, etc.
They can't practically prevent people from bringing their own devices, so they are making sure everyone understands the rules (so that if you do something bad by violating the rules, everyone understands why you deserved to be fired / prosecuted.)
It would be even worse if we weren't also locking up lots of water from rivers behind dams like the Hoover Dam
Even worse? Like a couple more millimeters! Evacuate NYC!
According to my calculations, 1.8 mm per year means about 3.5 inches in the 50 years they're talking about. They're not laughing in the Maldives, Florida or a number of low-lying coastal regions, such as, oh, yeah, Manhattan.
Sounds like they're trying to help people figure out how to USE the internet to their benefit, not how to censor it. Did you read a completely different article?
Slashdot Mirror
No public insurance companies sell flood insurance anywhere. The only flood insurance provider in the US is the US Government. It's not a model that works for a for-profit insurance company, since only people who live in flood-prone areas will ever buy the insurance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Flood_Insurance_Program
Whether this is good or bad will depend on your personal political viewpoint; I make no statement either way.
It's not strictly true that "no public insurance companies sell flood insurance" but you're generally right, it's not like a traditional insurance model because of the federal legislation regarding flood insurance requirements and the involvement of FEMA. From the page linked here:
"Today, flood insurance is available in more than 20,000 communities and U.S. territories and there are about 100 private insurance companies nationally that offer flood insurance backed by the government. Although federal assistance is still a vital part of disaster recovery, the NFIP saves the United States taxpayer millions of dollars every year."
Shush, you... If you give them the idea, you KNOW they'll do exactly that!
the Apollo program... ..the last time the US goverenment accomplished anything that actually mattered
A fake moon landing? ;-)
According the the Deputy Mayor for Operations, nothing was overbilled.
The reason these giant IT projects almost always cost more than the original bid is that the purchasing entity (NYC in this case) frequently either hides or isn't aware of some of the items that will affect the cost.
In a bad economic environment, this means there's ALWAYS someone saying "that company screwed this system up, delivered late, overbudget, and violated the terms of the contract!" Sometimes it's true that the contractor screwed up, but frequently the purchaser makes it impossible to deliver according to original cost projections.
Yikes; said that last part backward. Should have been:
"Therefore, most insurance companies will (maybe already do) refuse to write flood insurance policies in NC. The only way people would be able to get flood insurance is through a public pool (huh-huh) backed by FEMA."
Insurance-wise, I expect this:
I suspect that the law is currently that the insurance companies are only ALLOWED to consider historical flood data when formulating their rates.
Therefore, few (if any) insurance companies will (maybe already do) refuse to write flood insurance policies in NC. The only way people would be able to get flood insurance is through a public pool (huh-huh) backed by FEMA.
I look down on the vendors who are exploiting people's worst instincts, not the people who are thirsty, and happen to like soda. Many people cannot resist buying when the price looks good. The same principle causes people to make purchase decisions like "oh, that's on sale for only 2 for $1... Yeah, I'll get 2 of them, then."
I don't know if the fact that I don't buy drinks from vendors or vending machines means I'm a cheapskate, or health-conscious. However, I have learned that there's almost always a water fountain, or they'll give you a water cup for cheap.
You're very smart, much smarter than all those idiots who misunderstand basic economics.
Hmmm. Maybe I'm not as smart as the vendors who are charging $1 for $0.1 worth of product people don't really want.
You don't get it. This is a proposal that curbs the ability of Machiavellian vendors to profit because of people's misunderstanding of basic economics. It's a regulation of the vendors, not the buyers.
Here's how it works:
Most people don't really want the oversized cup. The theaters, stadiums, etc sell it because people will pay $1 more for a larger amount that has an incremental cost for the vendor that is significantly less than selling another cup.
In other words, the vendors sell it for no other reason that it's insanely profitable to get people to pay more for something they don't need at all (but feel as if they should want because it seems like a good price for the excess amount). People see that the second 16 ounces cost significantly less than the first 16 ounces, so they feel compelled to buy it in order to get "a good deal". However, most buyers don't consider that the value to them of the second 16 ounces is close to $0, but they're paying close to $1 for it.
Completely correct, but this would do even less to solve the problem in China. China has had a problem with a lack of unique full names for quite some time. According to this, there's 100,000 people named Wang Tao. I imagine that at least a few of them are in similar fields. There's a pretty simple explanation. Basically, the 100 most common surnames are used by 85% of the population. There's only between 3000-4000 surnames currently being used at all. Compare that to the United States, which has well over 100,000 surnames in common use.
True- thank you for the informative links. To complete the picture in the US, here's the US Census data about surnames from the 2000 census.
Why not solve this problem by just using the full name?
Because it wouldn't solve the problem at all. There are many researchers with the exact same full name. One reason we have Social Security numbers in the US is because full names have a strong tendency to be similar.
That said, I'm sure the Wangs can come up with a solution. huh-huh...
Not all content is TV and movies. If I recall my post correctly, I mentioned pictures, books, art, and "etc." (just in case I missed anything, see.)
Perhaps it's true, though; books, paintings, and other art aren't worth much to people anymore. What people really want is instant responses from their 100 best friends about how awesome it is that they're eating at Chili's, and modified photos of kittens talking on the phone.
My expectations for the majority of people are suitably altered.
Perhaps you've forgotten the old Slashdot slogan: "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters". This kind of stuff was on Slashdot since before I had a Slashdot user ID.
The thing that's changed on Slashdot is that there are now professional Slashdot astroturfers working for big tech companies.
Reference for US - people who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life on earth.
In "Western" countries, most people appear to believe in human evolution. It appears that in the areas with strong public education and innocuous religious institutions, people tend to believe in evolution.
The data I can find is very sparse regarding belief in evolution in African and Middle-Eastern countries. (I note Turkey at that second link, and wonder if that's an indicator of beliefs in other nearby countries.)
Is evidence that even a majority of people in the world believe in evolution?
If the content creators don't fight against people (illegally) making free copies of their pictures, books, movies, art, video games, etc, then there will be very little financial incentive to create the content we enjoy because nearly everyone will just copy stuff for free.
Perhaps what people on Slashdot don't realize is that this "I want it for free, so your rights as a content create" approach won't mean that new content doesn't get made; its just that the only movies (and books, etc) you'll get will be produced in India, China, and other places with extremely cheap labor.
You may dismiss this as fantasy created by the "copyright industry", but you'll wonder what happened when every new movie you see has a Hindi song and dance number at crucial plot points.
Except that the potential infringement is trademark, not copyright. Copyright has expired on the symbol, which was designed 100 years ago.
Any president would do this, regardless of party, for the same reasons Obama is: People want it, it's entirely reasonable, it's politically inoffensive, and both parties support it.
Kinda reminds me of this guy.
This seems very similar to rules about not taking pictures of company stuff, not copying vast amounts of source code, designs, or other confidential stuff, etc.
They can't practically prevent people from bringing their own devices, so they are making sure everyone understands the rules (so that if you do something bad by violating the rules, everyone understands why you deserved to be fired / prosecuted.)
Well, not really. Siri isn't a player in the market for people who would want something like Watson any more than Google is.
Right. And here's a Related article about Jeanette Horan's mobile strategy from earlier this year.
For reference, this is IBM's CEO
It would be even worse if we weren't also locking up lots of water from rivers behind dams like the Hoover Dam
Even worse? Like a couple more millimeters! Evacuate NYC!
According to my calculations, 1.8 mm per year means about 3.5 inches in the 50 years they're talking about. They're not laughing in the Maldives, Florida or a number of low-lying coastal regions, such as, oh, yeah, Manhattan.
Sounds like they're trying to help people figure out how to USE the internet to their benefit, not how to censor it. Did you read a completely different article?
Crap. I have to call the typo police on myself. :-)
Hmmm. He does seem to be a good match for Kentucky, but in Massachusetts, there's have a history of throwing Tea into the harbor.