I don't even want to think about the potential lawsuits should one of them fuck up and cause an accident.
Most states have "good samaritan" laws which protect people acting in good faith in an emergency situation from liability if they make a mistake. New York is one of them.
The former is, as described in the article, a temperment issue. Introverts tend to enjoy being alone or with a few close friends. Extroverts tend to find this boring. Extroverts tend to enjoy interacting with large groups of strangers. Introverts tend to find this tiresome.
Social anxiety is a paralyzing fear of social interaction caused by brain chemistry. People with SA are usually unhappy because they want social interaction but can't handle it, while introverts can handle social interaction but don't want to.
True, but my point was that more guns is definately to the disadvantage of criminals. Whether it is to the advantage of law abiding citizens depends on how potential criminals react to the increased risk.
You cant murder someone to stop him from carrying off your TV.
In most countries, that's true; you can only kill somebody legally if there is no other reasonable way to keep that person from killing you or an innocent third party.
In the US, you can use deadly force if you "reasonably believe" yourself to be in immediate danger of being attacked. In some states (like Texas), you also have the right to use deadly force to defend your property or to eject a tresspasser. In states without this rule, you still have a good chance at convincing a jury that defence of property should be justified.
2. In the US, most murders are solved within six hours. Most robberies are never solved. If you have to shoot your victims to rob them, you're going to have a very short career even if none of your victims are good/lucky enough to get a shot off.
The best solution I've thought of would be to buy insurance before getting the test. Joe buys a heart-disease-predispositition policy for $5,000 or so (probably with some installment plan for payment). If the test comes back positive, the insurance company will cover any heart disease treatment Joe suffers; to cover this, the insurance company takes the $50,000 paid by Joe and the nine people whose tests came back negative and buys a high-yield long-term investment.
After taking the test, everyone pays a lower rate on their regular health insurance, since either they are unlikely to get heart disease, or they have seperate heart disease coverage.
Of course, there needs to be some kind of precaution against Joe taking the test secretly before buying the insurance. Not sure how this would work without causing privacy problems.
Nevertheless - It still confused a lot of voters. This confusion biased the result toward Bush. Republican voters who were confused had their vote counted because they wouldn't have selected the second hole. Democrat voters did make the mistake. the fact that the person who chose the design happened to be a democrat is not relevent. The result was biased towards Bush because of a single person'e mistake. Should this single person have the power to affect the results in this way through negligence?
It wasn't just the election offical who designed the ballot who was negligent. The officals from all parties who reviewed and accepted the ballot - they were negligent too. For that matter, so were the voters who couldn't be bothered to read the instructions carefully.
In any case, once the election is held, it's too late to change the procedures. This is part of federal election law, and it comes from basic experimental principles. In order for experimental results to be valid, the measurement process and objective criteria for evaluating the results must be fixed in advance.
Now that we know that butterfly ballots cause problems, we will probably never use them again in any juristiction.
Most of the money that's spent on the war is actually spent paying US companies for products and services (those cruise missiles were actually bought from someone) + salaries for servicemen.
It's not a matter of where the dollars are going. If we were running out of dollars, we could just print more. The problem is that the raw materials, effort, and ingenuity that went into blowing up selected pieces of Iraq are raw materials, effort, and ingenuity that didn't go into making refrigerators and optical routers.
As others in this thread have pointed out, Bush did work in the oil business first. However, he worked in the oil EXPLORATION business, which COMPETES with Iraqi oil, not the refining or distribution business which would benefit from the lifting of sanctions on Iraqi oil.
Hmmm. Here at Cal Poly, we also use the term "underwater basket-weaving", but for a slightly different meaning. Here, it refers to a class that doesn't count towards graduation that is taken to pad one's schedule to 12 units (the minimum to keep financial aid).
Assuming your time is worth nothing. Granted, it probably won't take $600 worth of your time to buy all the parts, assemble them, and troubleshoot the machine, but the cost of your time will still be a significant addition to the price.
Re:Building a new STS the right way.
on
More on Columbia
·
· Score: 1
You got the important part right. Before looking it up, I thought the 500 million figure was the marginal cost, so thank you for raising the issue.
Re:Building a new STS the right way.
on
More on Columbia
·
· Score: 3, Informative
2) The $450 million/ flight cost includes initial development, a cost which cannot be recovered at this point. The actual marginal cost of one shuttle flight is something like $50 million. If the USA had built as many as originally envisioned, the cost/ flight would have likewise been a lot lower.
People arguing over shuttle costs on the net are usually arguing from
different assumptions and do not describe their assumptions clearly,
making it impossible to reach agreement. To demonstrate the difficulty,
here are a range of flight cost figures differing by a factor of 35 and
some of the assumptions behind them (all use 1992 constant dollars).
$45 million - marginal cost of adding or removing one flight from
the manifest in a given year.
$414 million - NASA's average cost/flight, assuming planned flight
rates are met and using current fiscal year data only.
$1 billion - operational costs since 1983 spread over the actual
number of flights.
$900 million - $1.35 billion - total (including development) costs
since the inception of the shuttle program, assuming 4 or 8
flights/year and operations ending in 2005 or 2010.
$1.6 billion - total costs through 1992 spread over the actual
number of flights through 1992.
We, Canadian or American, will never see a cash replacement like this.
Funny. I've seen plenty of "gift cards" floating around the US. Anonymous plastic cards with magnetic strips, the issuer keeping track of how much money is on each card. In most cases, you can add money at the checkout counter by giving the checker cash, check, or traditional plastic. Some are just accepted by the issuing store. Others are linked into the existing credit/debit card network. Examples:
The last two have the recipient's name on the card, but it is legal and unchecked to give them a pseudonym for privacy reasons.
It's strange to see the banner of liberty go back to the French, after so many years.
This may just be my libertarian bias talking, but having something arise from the private sector seems more free than having the same thing imposed by government fiat.
But few cases have been successfully prosecuted under state laws, partly because spammers hide their identities -- by forging e-mail headers and routing information or by relaying spam through an unsuspecting host. That makes it hard to pinpoint the humans responsible for sending out the illegal missives.
If spammers can avoid prosecution under these laws, they can use the do-not-email list as a source of emails to spam. We know they would do this because of how they use the "reply-to-remove" links to see if an email address is live and unfiltered.
There's a way to avoid this problem: don't publish the emails; publish a one-way hash of the emails. Cracking the hash would take enough resources that it wouldn't be cost effective for the spammers, but "ethical" spammers who are trying to obey the law would be able to use the hashes to check if emails already on their list were opted-out.
So, basically I can buy a car that is perfectly legal to leave in my garage and never take out.
You can drive it on your own property (or any private property w/approval of the owner), and you can fly it over international waters . I would think that you could fly it below a certain altitude over your own property, but I can't find a link.
So yes, completely useless for transport (unless you're Ted Turner and own millions of acres of land), this isn't much use as transport. But there's always the "Cool! I have a flying car!" factor, plus if Moller actually attains commercial success their prototype will have huge collector's value.
it shows that Osama Bin Laden has a Bacon rating of infinity
However, if you don't just count movies, you can do it. According to the oracle,
The Oracle says: Saddam Hussein has a Bacon number of 3.
Saddam Hussein was in Saddam Hussein: Defying the World - A Visual Biography (1990) with George Bush George Bush was in Last Party, The (1993) with Sean Penn Sean Penn was in Mystic River (2003) with Kevin Bacon
Now, according to the Department of Defense, Saddam is linked to Al Quaeda. Let's not get into the question of whether or not we can trust the DoD.
think every animal is tasty. It's just a question of finding a group of people who think it's okay to eat it.
(Of course, the rules change completely when you talk about plants
I was counting plants, fungi, and single-celled organism, most of which are probably not tasty. Most of these produce exciting chemicals that our bodies are not equipped to handle. Some species make these chemicals to avoid becoming salad, others as part of their metabolic processes.
I will grant that most animals would probably be tasty if you can get over the "ick" factor. I expect the only non-tasty animals would be the ones who produce poisonous or bitter-tasting chemicals specifically in order to be non-tasty.
Heck, I expect even worms would be tasty, properly prepared. Just about everything else we use as fish bait is (other fish, squid, clams, crawfish, rolled-up bread, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
I don't even want to think about the potential lawsuits should one of them fuck up and cause an accident.
Most states have "good samaritan" laws which protect people acting in good faith in an emergency situation from liability if they make a mistake. New York is one of them.
Link: http://www.medicalreservecorps.gov/appendixc.htm
and take some anti-anxiety pills
Introversion != Social Anxiety
The former is, as described in the article, a temperment issue. Introverts tend to enjoy being alone or with a few close friends. Extroverts tend to find this boring. Extroverts tend to enjoy interacting with large groups of strangers. Introverts tend to find this tiresome.
Social anxiety is a paralyzing fear of social interaction caused by brain chemistry. People with SA are usually unhappy because they want social interaction but can't handle it, while introverts can handle social interaction but don't want to.
You know, the bible is an unfalible book from 2000 years ago and it doesn't say anything about the right to gun ownership.
As has already been pointed out, the bible predates the invention of guns. However, with respect to weapon ownership:
"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
Luke 22:36, King James translation
True, but my point was that more guns is definately to the disadvantage of criminals. Whether it is to the advantage of law abiding citizens depends on how potential criminals react to the increased risk.
You cant murder someone to stop him from carrying off your TV.
In most countries, that's true; you can only kill somebody legally if there is no other reasonable way to keep that person from killing you or an innocent third party.
In the US, you can use deadly force if you "reasonably believe" yourself to be in immediate danger of being attacked. In some states (like Texas), you also have the right to use deadly force to defend your property or to eject a tresspasser. In states without this rule, you still have a good chance at convincing a jury that defence of property should be justified.
1. You only have to be the slower draw once.
2. In the US, most murders are solved within six hours. Most robberies are never solved. If you have to shoot your victims to rob them, you're going to have a very short career even if none of your victims are good/lucky enough to get a shot off.
This is completely useless.
Not so. Now, if you get caught smuggling MP3s, you can claim you though you were just doing some innocent gun running.
The best solution I've thought of would be to buy insurance before getting the test. Joe buys a heart-disease-predispositition policy for $5,000 or so (probably with some installment plan for payment). If the test comes back positive, the insurance company will cover any heart disease treatment Joe suffers; to cover this, the insurance company takes the $50,000 paid by Joe and the nine people whose tests came back negative and buys a high-yield long-term investment.
After taking the test, everyone pays a lower rate on their regular health insurance, since either they are unlikely to get heart disease, or they have seperate heart disease coverage.
Of course, there needs to be some kind of precaution against Joe taking the test secretly before buying the insurance. Not sure how this would work without causing privacy problems.
Nevertheless - It still confused a lot of voters. This confusion biased the result toward Bush. Republican voters who were confused had their vote counted because they wouldn't have selected the second hole. Democrat voters did make the mistake. the fact that the person who chose the design happened to be a democrat is not relevent. The result was biased towards Bush because of a single person'e mistake. Should this single person have the power to affect the results in this way through negligence?
It wasn't just the election offical who designed the ballot who was negligent. The officals from all parties who reviewed and accepted the ballot - they were negligent too. For that matter, so were the voters who couldn't be bothered to read the instructions carefully.
In any case, once the election is held, it's too late to change the procedures. This is part of federal election law, and it comes from basic experimental principles. In order for experimental results to be valid, the measurement process and objective criteria for evaluating the results must be fixed in advance.
Now that we know that butterfly ballots cause problems, we will probably never use them again in any juristiction.
go to MSN and do the same thing.
Best: MSN.com
Worst: GO.com
Read closer. MSN.com is the top of the featured results (trans: paid ads). The top actual result was google.com
Most of the money that's spent on the war is actually spent paying US companies for products and services (those cruise missiles were actually bought from someone) + salaries for servicemen.
It's not a matter of where the dollars are going. If we were running out of dollars, we could just print more. The problem is that the raw materials, effort, and ingenuity that went into blowing up selected pieces of Iraq are raw materials, effort, and ingenuity that didn't go into making refrigerators and optical routers.
As others in this thread have pointed out, Bush did work in the oil business first. However, he worked in the oil EXPLORATION business, which COMPETES with Iraqi oil, not the refining or distribution business which would benefit from the lifting of sanctions on Iraqi oil.
Hmmm. Here at Cal Poly, we also use the term "underwater basket-weaving", but for a slightly different meaning. Here, it refers to a class that doesn't count towards graduation that is taken to pad one's schedule to 12 units (the minimum to keep financial aid).
And unless they can take the atmosphere with them, then I guess European Life is in Doubt
Total- $2500
Assuming your time is worth nothing. Granted, it probably won't take $600 worth of your time to buy all the parts, assemble them, and troubleshoot the machine, but the cost of your time will still be a significant addition to the price.
You got the important part right. Before looking it up, I thought the 500 million figure was the marginal cost, so thank you for raising the issue.
2) The $450 million/ flight cost includes initial development, a cost which cannot be recovered at this point. The actual marginal cost of one shuttle flight is something like $50 million. If the USA had built as many as originally envisioned, the cost/ flight would have likewise been a lot lower.
From the Space FAQ:
People arguing over shuttle costs on the net are usually arguing from
different assumptions and do not describe their assumptions clearly,
making it impossible to reach agreement. To demonstrate the difficulty,
here are a range of flight cost figures differing by a factor of 35 and
some of the assumptions behind them (all use 1992 constant dollars).
$45 million - marginal cost of adding or removing one flight from
the manifest in a given year.
$414 million - NASA's average cost/flight, assuming planned flight
rates are met and using current fiscal year data only.
$1 billion - operational costs since 1983 spread over the actual
number of flights.
$900 million - $1.35 billion - total (including development) costs
since the inception of the shuttle program, assuming 4 or 8
flights/year and operations ending in 2005 or 2010.
$1.6 billion - total costs through 1992 spread over the actual
number of flights through 1992.
I don't believe you. Could you post some links to reputable sources?
We, Canadian or American, will never see a cash replacement like this.
Funny. I've seen plenty of "gift cards" floating around the US. Anonymous plastic cards with magnetic strips, the issuer keeping track of how much money is on each card. In most cases, you can add money at the checkout counter by giving the checker cash, check, or traditional plastic. Some are just accepted by the issuing store. Others are linked into the existing credit/debit card network. Examples:
Shell (only accepted by issuing store)
Discover
National City/Visa
Bank of America/Visa
American Express
The last two have the recipient's name on the card, but it is legal and unchecked to give them a pseudonym for privacy reasons.
It's strange to see the banner of liberty go back to the French, after so many years.
This may just be my libertarian bias talking, but having something arise from the private sector seems more free than having the same thing imposed by government fiat.
But few cases have been successfully prosecuted under state laws, partly because spammers hide their identities -- by forging e-mail headers and routing information or by relaying spam through an unsuspecting host. That makes it hard to pinpoint the humans responsible for sending out the illegal missives.
If spammers can avoid prosecution under these laws, they can use the do-not-email list as a source of emails to spam. We know they would do this because of how they use the "reply-to-remove" links to see if an email address is live and unfiltered.
There's a way to avoid this problem: don't publish the emails; publish a one-way hash of the emails. Cracking the hash would take enough resources that it wouldn't be cost effective for the spammers, but "ethical" spammers who are trying to obey the law would be able to use the hashes to check if emails already on their list were opted-out.
Why can't you just say 400h-bit RSA?
Because I'm a C++ programmer, and I say 0x400 bit RSA.
So, basically I can buy a car that is perfectly legal to leave in my garage and never take out.
You can drive it on your own property (or any private property w/approval of the owner), and you can fly it over international waters . I would think that you could fly it below a certain altitude over your own property, but I can't find a link.
So yes, completely useless for transport (unless you're Ted Turner and own millions of acres of land), this isn't much use as transport. But there's always the "Cool! I have a flying car!" factor, plus if Moller actually attains commercial success their prototype will have huge collector's value.
Need to research more before I post...
Seems the oracle is incomplete.
Osama bin Laden was in Afganistan: Land in Crisis (2002) with Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan was in Post No Bills (1992) with Tim Robbins
Tim Robbins was in Mystic River (2003) with Kevin Bacon
However, if you don't just count movies, you can do it. According to the oracle,
Now, according to the Department of Defense, Saddam is linked to Al Quaeda. Let's not get into the question of whether or not we can trust the DoD.
think every animal is tasty. It's just a question of finding a group of people who think it's okay to eat it.
(Of course, the rules change completely when you talk about plants
I was counting plants, fungi, and single-celled organism, most of which are probably not tasty. Most of these produce exciting chemicals that our bodies are not equipped to handle. Some species make these chemicals to avoid becoming salad, others as part of their metabolic processes.
I will grant that most animals would probably be tasty if you can get over the "ick" factor. I expect the only non-tasty animals would be the ones who produce poisonous or bitter-tasting chemicals specifically in order to be non-tasty.
Heck, I expect even worms would be tasty, properly prepared. Just about everything else we use as fish bait is (other fish, squid, clams, crawfish, rolled-up bread, etc).