"Come on, who do you think is at fault here - the young teenager taking the easy money being offered? Or the multinational corporation with packages designed to temp said teenager, and profit massively out of the situation?"
How is it you missed the other party in your search for fault? The federal government that guarantees all the loans? If the government guarantees that the banks will get their money, doesn't it make sense for the banks to take advantage of that?
Where are you banking, because I want to bank there!
Or when you say "a return", are you referring to an amount less than inflation, so they're giving you more dollars back, but less purchasing power, for letting them use it in the meantime? In that case, I already have one of those.
The problem, of course, is that "newsworthy" == "whatever train wreck gets us the most viewers for our advertisers". When it comes to actual useful information, facts, context and statistics, you may as well forget the news media.
At $1000/kg into LEO, a metallic asteroid one mile in diameter ought to be worth about $10,000 TRILLION dollars.
You're comparing apples to oranges, or rather, raw material to finished, useful goods. A kilogram chunk of rocky metal in space is worth a lot less than a kilogram of food, or equipment. At least until there's the capacity to manufacture any needed item in space, and getting that infrastructure in place is going to cost a lot too.
It gets better--following their math, 92 minutes a week gives a 14% reduction in mortality from all causes, and every additional 15 minutes gives an additional 4%. there's no point of diminishing returns identified. So, if you exercise 7 hours a week, you become immortal.
On average. In reality, some people exercising 7 hours a week will live much longer than that, and some much shorter.
The point he was making is that a lot of wildfires will cause a spike in the CO2 levels in the air. Most of the carbon in those trees has been sitting in wood form for years, and it will take years for new trees to grow enough to re-sequester that carbon.
A more accurate headline would've been "Sergey Brin thinks managing your own computer is 'torture'."
The Bush administration would probably have had its lawyers write papers determining that managing XP installations is not, in fact, torture, and have the enemy combatants at Gitmo doing sysadmin work until they broke down and revealed their terrorist plans.
The return address is not required in many cases, so regular mail can certainly hide who you are communicating with. Or the return address can be easily spoofed.
And if you drop the letter in a big blue mailbox or at a post office, there's no way to track the origin of the letter.
I'm assuming your perl script uses a logged in google session if that's what you do in your browser. Is your perl script using the same user agent as your web browser? Do you allow javascript to run on google.com in your browser? Does your script run all the time, periodically (but randomized intervals), while you're awake, or does it run around the times you generally are searching for real? That's just a few ways that Google could determine which searches are really you and which are a script.
They're not unsolvable, they're infeasible. There's an important difference.
You can solve TSP for 1 million cities if you're willing to wait a few billion years, but the fact that you're waiting a few billion years makes it infeasible.
If you can keep one or more of today's computer in a runnable state for billions of years, I'll concede that you're right. My bet, however, is that every single one of today's computers will be little more than dust in "a few billion years", effectively making the problems "unsolvable with conventional computers" because they simply can't last that long.
enacted "Obamacare" in a nearly completely partisan vote with little to no real input from the right
That's not quite the way it happened. "We considered 287 amendments. 161 of those...accepted were Republican amendments. You can vote against the bill if you want, but don't suggest to me that this process denied people a chance to be heard, to be involved, and to be engaged. " - Chris Dodd
The fact that Republicans got 161 amendments added to the health care bill and they still didn't vote for it doesn't indicate to me that they're interested in engaging with Democrats in any meaningful way.
Sure, 161 sounds like a pretty big number, but you have to consider how substantial the amendment is compared to the rest of the bill. If Nancy Pelosi accepts my amendment that would raise HSA limits a couple hundred dollars, should I say "wow, thanks Nancy, this bill totally gets my vote regardless of what else is in it?"
"Per Title 13, they could fine me $100 for failing to complete the form. I don't think that'll happen, but it's worth $100 to me to stand on the principle."
If you believe the people who respond to questions on ask.census.gov, your $100 is probably safe. I asked what the penalties are for failure to answer questions:
You can find the penalties and offenses below, however, we have not pursued prosecution in the past.
From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access [www.gpoaccess.gov] [Laws in effect as of January 3, 2007] [CITE: 13USC221]
TITLE 13--CENSUS
CHAPTER 7--OFFENSES AND PENALTIES
SUBCHAPTER II--OTHER PERSONS
Sec. 221. Refusal or neglect to answer questions; false answers
(a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the occupant, shall be fined not more than $100. (b) Whoever, when answering questions described in subsection (a) of this section, and under the conditions or circumstances described in such subsection, willfully gives any answer that is false, shall be fined not more than $500. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.
(Aug. 31, 1954, ch. 1158, 68 Stat. 1023; Pub. L. 85-207, Sec. 15, Aug. 28, 1957, 71 Stat. 484; Pub. L. 94-521, Sec. 13, Oct. 17, 1976, 90 Stat. 2465.)
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 13, U.S.C., 1952 ed., Secs. 122, 209, and section 1442 of title 42, U.S.C., 1952 ed., The Public Health and Welfare (June 18, 1929, ch. 28, Sec. 9, 46 Stat. 23; June 19, 1948, ch. 502, Sec. 2, 62 Stat. 479; July 15, 1949, ch. 338, title VI, Sec. 607, 63 Stat. 441). Section consolidates the first paragraph of section 209 of title 13, U.S.C., 1952 ed., which section related to the decennial censuses of population, agriculture, etc. (see subchapter II of chapter 5 of this revised title), with that part of section 122 of such title which made such section 209 applicable to the quinquennial censuses of manufactures, the mineral industries, and other businesses (see subchapter I of chapter 5 of this revised title) and applicable to the surveys provided for by section 121(b) of such title (see subchapter IV of chapter 5 of this revised title), and that part of subsection (b) of section 1442 of title 42, U.S.C., 1952 ed., which made such section 209 applicable to the decennial censuses of housing (see subchapter II of chapter 5 of this revised title). For remainder of sections 122 and 209 of title 13, U.S.C., 1952 ed., and of section 1442 of title 42, U.S.C., 1952 ed. (which section has been transferred in its entirety to this revised title), see Distribution Table. The language of section 209 of title 13, U.S.C., 1952 ed., providing that it should ``be the duty'' of all persons over eighteen years of age, to answer correctly, to the best of their knowledge, when requested, etc., was omitted as unnecessary and redundant. The provisions, as herein revised, define offenses and prescribe penalties for committing them, and are deemed sufficient for the purpose of enforcement. However, some of the language used in the omitted provisions was necessarily included in the description of the offense. The designation of the first offense, herein described, as a ``misdemeanor'', was omitted as
"We the People...in Order to...promote the general Welfare..do ordain and establish this Constitution."
The first mention of "general welfare" doesn't give the government any authority, so we'll skip that and find the second mention...
"Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
"General welfare" in this case is a limitation on how taxes collected by the federal goverment can be spent -- it doesn't grant any power to Congress otherwise. Read on in Section 8, which lays out the powers of Congress, and try again to find something that justifies federally run healthcare.
Personally I am happy to be able to walk down to the shops without needing to carry a weapon.
You can't wish that the bad guys didn't have weapons. So you take appropriate measures to defend or deter. That might be arming yourself, wearing a bulletproof vest, walking naked to the store (you're not worth robbing if you don't have a wallet somewhere, right? Ok, scratch that one)...
Let's put it another way. You run Windows on your computer. You don't go without some kind of virus protection, right?
we have shopping carts that are all chained together...you insert a one euro coin to remove it and then take the cart back to the cart corral to retrieve your coin....it seems to work fairly well here.
That would never work here in the States...no one carries one euro coins...
Nowadays, a mobile phone in Asia and Europe would not be top notch without... video conference capabilities
These phones must have the camera in a different place than on American phones, or I suspect you'd have to have a mirror handy to do your video conferencing...
I don't hear anyone claiming we should stop using water though. Because that would be stupid, and unlike our CO2 emissions, our water vapor emissions are not causing substantial climate change.
Slashdot Mirror
"Come on, who do you think is at fault here - the young teenager taking the easy money being offered? Or the multinational corporation with packages designed to temp said teenager, and profit massively out of the situation?"
How is it you missed the other party in your search for fault? The federal government that guarantees all the loans? If the government guarantees that the banks will get their money, doesn't it make sense for the banks to take advantage of that?
Where are you banking, because I want to bank there!
Or when you say "a return", are you referring to an amount less than inflation, so they're giving you more dollars back, but less purchasing power, for letting them use it in the meantime? In that case, I already have one of those.
The problem, of course, is that "newsworthy" == "whatever train wreck gets us the most viewers for our advertisers". When it comes to actual useful information, facts, context and statistics, you may as well forget the news media.
At $1000/kg into LEO, a metallic asteroid one mile in diameter ought to be worth about $10,000 TRILLION dollars.
You're comparing apples to oranges, or rather, raw material to finished, useful goods. A kilogram chunk of rocky metal in space is worth a lot less than a kilogram of food, or equipment. At least until there's the capacity to manufacture any needed item in space, and getting that infrastructure in place is going to cost a lot too.
It gets better--following their math, 92 minutes a week gives a 14% reduction in mortality from all causes, and every additional 15 minutes gives an additional 4%. there's no point of diminishing returns identified. So, if you exercise 7 hours a week, you become immortal.
On average. In reality, some people exercising 7 hours a week will live much longer than that, and some much shorter.
Maybe he wants USPS privatized, too. But probably not.
The point he was making is that a lot of wildfires will cause a spike in the CO2 levels in the air. Most of the carbon in those trees has been sitting in wood form for years, and it will take years for new trees to grow enough to re-sequester that carbon.
A more accurate headline would've been "Sergey Brin thinks managing your own computer is 'torture'."
The Bush administration would probably have had its lawyers write papers determining that managing XP installations is not, in fact, torture, and have the enemy combatants at Gitmo doing sysadmin work until they broke down and revealed their terrorist plans.
The return address is not required in many cases, so regular mail can certainly hide who you are communicating with. Or the return address can be easily spoofed.
And if you drop the letter in a big blue mailbox or at a post office, there's no way to track the origin of the letter.
How about privileges, for a less dirty-sounding word? Rights granted by God, privileges granted by government.
I'm assuming your perl script uses a logged in google session if that's what you do in your browser. Is your perl script using the same user agent as your web browser? Do you allow javascript to run on google.com in your browser? Does your script run all the time, periodically (but randomized intervals), while you're awake, or does it run around the times you generally are searching for real? That's just a few ways that Google could determine which searches are really you and which are a script.
Is there a way to set it up to BCC another account automatically? Seems like this would be an easy step to forget when you're sending an email.
"unsolvable with conventional computers"
They're not unsolvable, they're infeasible. There's an important difference.
You can solve TSP for 1 million cities if you're willing to wait a few billion years, but the fact that you're waiting a few billion years makes it infeasible.
If you can keep one or more of today's computer in a runnable state for billions of years, I'll concede that you're right. My bet, however, is that every single one of today's computers will be little more than dust in "a few billion years", effectively making the problems "unsolvable with conventional computers" because they simply can't last that long.
enacted "Obamacare" in a nearly completely partisan vote with little to no real input from the right
That's not quite the way it happened.
"We considered 287 amendments. 161 of those...accepted were Republican amendments. You can vote against the bill if you want, but don't suggest to me that this process denied people a chance to be heard, to be involved, and to be engaged. " - Chris Dodd
The fact that Republicans got 161 amendments added to the health care bill and they still didn't vote for it doesn't indicate to me that they're interested in engaging with Democrats in any meaningful way.
Sure, 161 sounds like a pretty big number, but you have to consider how substantial the amendment is compared to the rest of the bill. If Nancy Pelosi accepts my amendment that would raise HSA limits a couple hundred dollars, should I say "wow, thanks Nancy, this bill totally gets my vote regardless of what else is in it?"
"Per Title 13, they could fine me $100 for failing to complete the form. I don't think that'll happen, but it's worth $100 to me to stand on the principle."
If you believe the people who respond to questions on ask.census.gov, your $100 is probably safe. I asked what the penalties are for failure to answer questions:
Try again.
"We the People...in Order to...promote the general Welfare..do ordain and establish this Constitution."
The first mention of "general welfare" doesn't give the government any authority, so we'll skip that and find the second mention...
"Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
"General welfare" in this case is a limitation on how taxes collected by the federal goverment can be spent -- it doesn't grant any power to Congress otherwise. Read on in Section 8, which lays out the powers of Congress, and try again to find something that justifies federally run healthcare.
Whoever moderated this comment as funny doesn't get it.
"Looks like it is time to start making cell phone calls from outside."
Maybe not, if the cell tower is overhead, and you didn't paint the ceilings?
So you want to put part of the password into the username?
Take for example the Turk. A chess program is one of the root of Skynet?
I don't want to spoil it for you, but turns out Turk has quite a different role than a precursor Skynet. When did you stop watching the series?
Does Wasilla Public High School only offer abstinence-only sex education? Where's moderation when you need it...
Personally I am happy to be able to walk down to the shops without needing to carry a weapon.
You can't wish that the bad guys didn't have weapons. So you take appropriate measures to defend or deter. That might be arming yourself, wearing a bulletproof vest, walking naked to the store (you're not worth robbing if you don't have a wallet somewhere, right? Ok, scratch that one)...
Let's put it another way. You run Windows on your computer. You don't go without some kind of virus protection, right?
we have shopping carts that are all chained together...you insert a one euro coin to remove it and then take the cart back to the cart corral to retrieve your coin....it seems to work fairly well here.
That would never work here in the States...no one carries one euro coins...
Nowadays, a mobile phone in Asia and Europe would not be top notch without ... video conference capabilities
These phones must have the camera in a different place than on American phones, or I suspect you'd have to have a mirror handy to do your video conferencing...
Actually, I think you're wrong. There's been plenty of talk that high-altitude jet contrails cause substantial climate change.