Then every patron with a brain and a spine says "No thanks, I'll take my chances. I won't hold you liable if I lose it, which you wouldn't be anyway." Granted, there aren't many people these days with both, but I'll tell you where to shove your bus before I hand over my phone.
We should at the very least stop enabling the endless price hikes by putting the university's skin in the game. As it stands now, you can take out huge loans for college. The university gets their cash before you even enter the classroom. If they sell you a degree that is worthless, they don' t have to care (much). They still get paid. If you can't pay the loan, they don't care, they already got paid. You also can't generally default on the loan through bankruptcy, so those loaning you the money don't care if you ever make a dime back on the degree, either. They'll still get theirs.
Won't help. The primary impediment to travel is other cars. If you can get everyone else to buy ice tires, or hell, just teach them to drive on snow, I'd be fine.
Not even that. 50.5 million people voted for Dubya, or about 16% of Americans. If you want to cut to a more reasonable "Americans eligible to vote", then 26% of that 194 million voted for him (or Gore, for whom 51 million voted). There were 129.5 million registered voters, so 39.4% of them voted for Gore and 39% for Bush.
Even if you go to people who actually voted in the election, Gore got about 48 1/2 %. Still not a majority.
Exactly. $BOSS is an idiot. Everyone and everything has an error rate. Software development is well known not to be a perfect process. Even the very best developers create bugs. Your boss didn't hire some theoretical perfect developer, he hired you. If he's not happy with your error rate, he can fire you, but he can't require you to work for free just because you aren't as good as some theoretical perfect developer.
Based on my experience with these things at a beach, yes, they're very bright at night, and far, far brighter than instrument lights. I'm not talking $5 laser pointer, but $30 higher output (still tens of mW) toys.
I'm curious. Has anyone ever actually caused harm in US airspace with a laser pointer yet? Or are we creating a crime around something that has never caused harm?
Has anyone ever caused harm on US highways with a laser pointer? If not, is it ok if they hang around on your route home and shine it in your eyes as you drive by? Again, based on my experience at the beach, having these things shined in my eyes as I'm driving would be a problem and a hazard. Does someone actually have to be hurt or killed before we say stop?
This is very definitely a good idea, however I don't mind also taking morons who are deliberately messing with a vehicle carrying dozens to hundreds of live human beings and giving them a time out in a cell to think about why that's a stupid thing to do.
What height exactly? The height of an airplane taking off isn't really that high. Who says they're using average laser pointers? A beach I frequent sells those higher powered pointers. Some idiot was waving one around 1/4 to 1/2 mile away on the beach, and when it crossed my eyeball, it was a damned bright FLASH.
Everyone else will be using conventional sub-sonic missiles.
I was replying to this. Everyone else will NOT be using conventional sub-sonic missiles, unless they're using them in the 1940s or earlier. Everyone has supersonic missiles now, and has for a long, long time.
Conventional missiles have been supersonic for oh, 60 years or so now.
But yeah, I agree, the question is a stupid one. No, missile defense isn't obsolete, it'll just have to evolve to handle faster targets. Dare I say it...it's an arms race, and always will be.
This is absolutely true, but with one caveat: NASA shouldn't either write an RFP asking for "one size fits all" proposals, or shouldn't award the contract to a vendor who proposes doing that if that's not what they want. From the report, it sounds like that's what happened.
Fine.:-P Apostrophes are also used for contractions. People also put them in names for reasons I don't quite understand, but whatever. My intent was to correct the misperception that apostrophes are for plurals, which is horribly common these days. It's so common I won't be surprised if it becomes considered correct at some point in the future. $DIETY know's why people have 'started to think that every time there's an 's in a 'sentence there need's to be an apo'strophe before it.
You know, proportion is a good thing. Texting during movies is darned annoying, and there should be a consequence. Like, oh, I don't know, a stern "Hey, knock it off!" Or having the theater staff escort you out. There are things where being shot is an appropriate consequence, but this isn't one, and that's lucky for you (and me, and everyone else), because I promise you at one time or another, we've all done something more offensive than text in a theater.
I can still recite the multiplication tables up to 12 with no real thought.
That might not have been a waste of time for you, but it was for me. Memorize such nonsense on your own time.
I disagree. I can do lots of useful math without a calculator. My kids, who were not forced to memorize such nonsense, can't. You might argue that calculators are ubiquitous, and you'd be right, but the related area in which they fail is not having any idea when answers are wildly wrong. They simply type and trust.
I was going to mention them. I've been considering buying an alarm myself for a while now, and they're the leading contender as far as I'm concerned. If I buy one, that's going to be the one. For the stuff I need, it's $400 for the system and I agree, I'd go with the $25/month plan just because I want the smartphone toys.
I get the storytelling part, actually, and accept stories are great ways to convey lessons. What I reject is the notion that because things happen a certain way in stories, we should assume they happen that way in real life. I object when we stop and don't draw the parallels between real life and the story to establish that the story is more than just a work of fiction. If you don't do that, you can "teach" lessons which are compelling (because they're well written), but just not true. Case in point, I grew up in the Christian tradition where the story of Abraham is a story about faith, trusting God, etc. Maybe I'm just not faithful enough, but if I ever hear voices telling me to tie my son up and stab him, I'm checking in to the nearest loony bin. I would instead point to the real life examples where "God" tells people to kill, and they do, and we throw them in jail or an asylum and call them crazy.
One thing that amused me when raising my own children is that for a good number of lessons in fables, fairy tales, etc, you can find one that teaches the opposite lesson. Once upon a time, I could rattle off a list of examples. My children are well past the age of fairy tales now.
You know what Sci-Fi can teach you about $REALLIFE? Nothing. Because it's fiction. You can learn things from real life due to this little thing called causality. In books, effect follows cause not necessarily because it really would in real life, but because the author chose it to happen.
Some brokerage house ran an ad years ago something like "What can a picket fence gate teach you about investing?" Of course the answer is the same. Absolutely nothing. However, you can learn about investing AND learn about picket fences and discover commonalities. In no way have you used what you learned about fences to understand investing.
Of course they should be free to sell it. There are research opportunities all over the place to do this, and I don't mind that one bit. The difference is they don't have police pulling you over to ask.
They aren't the same people. I wouldn't buy into it, and I've never been stoned, and am almost a non-drinker. I would just find getting pulled over and being asked for a cheek swab to be a bizarre and highly intrusive request.
I'd really like to hear from someone who was pulled over and refused to participate. If that was they end of it and they were allowed to drive away, it's still an abuse of power to have police stopping people to ask them to participate in a research study, but it's less bad than coercing people into participating.
Ford wouldn't have paid investors for losing money on their stock either. Nor should they. Do you think the government would have given GM the money had they profited? Of course not. Why do you think it should go the other way?
Slashdot Mirror
Then every patron with a brain and a spine says "No thanks, I'll take my chances. I won't hold you liable if I lose it, which you wouldn't be anyway." Granted, there aren't many people these days with both, but I'll tell you where to shove your bus before I hand over my phone.
They probably cut science class one too many times and never took the make-up tests.
Exactly.
We should at the very least stop enabling the endless price hikes by putting the university's skin in the game. As it stands now, you can take out huge loans for college. The university gets their cash before you even enter the classroom. If they sell you a degree that is worthless, they don' t have to care (much). They still get paid. If you can't pay the loan, they don't care, they already got paid. You also can't generally default on the loan through bankruptcy, so those loaning you the money don't care if you ever make a dime back on the degree, either. They'll still get theirs.
Room and board is usually a separate line item on the bill, so tuition is not going up because students want (or get) individual rooms.
Won't help. The primary impediment to travel is other cars. If you can get everyone else to buy ice tires, or hell, just teach them to drive on snow, I'd be fine.
Not even that. 50.5 million people voted for Dubya, or about 16% of Americans. If you want to cut to a more reasonable "Americans eligible to vote", then 26% of that 194 million voted for him (or Gore, for whom 51 million voted). There were 129.5 million registered voters, so 39.4% of them voted for Gore and 39% for Bush.
Even if you go to people who actually voted in the election, Gore got about 48 1/2 %. Still not a majority.
Exactly. $BOSS is an idiot. Everyone and everything has an error rate. Software development is well known not to be a perfect process. Even the very best developers create bugs. Your boss didn't hire some theoretical perfect developer, he hired you. If he's not happy with your error rate, he can fire you, but he can't require you to work for free just because you aren't as good as some theoretical perfect developer.
Based on my experience with these things at a beach, yes, they're very bright at night, and far, far brighter than instrument lights. I'm not talking $5 laser pointer, but $30 higher output (still tens of mW) toys.
Has anyone ever caused harm on US highways with a laser pointer? If not, is it ok if they hang around on your route home and shine it in your eyes as you drive by? Again, based on my experience at the beach, having these things shined in my eyes as I'm driving would be a problem and a hazard. Does someone actually have to be hurt or killed before we say stop?
This is very definitely a good idea, however I don't mind also taking morons who are deliberately messing with a vehicle carrying dozens to hundreds of live human beings and giving them a time out in a cell to think about why that's a stupid thing to do.
What height exactly? The height of an airplane taking off isn't really that high. Who says they're using average laser pointers? A beach I frequent sells those higher powered pointers. Some idiot was waving one around 1/4 to 1/2 mile away on the beach, and when it crossed my eyeball, it was a damned bright FLASH.
I was replying to this. Everyone else will NOT be using conventional sub-sonic missiles, unless they're using them in the 1940s or earlier. Everyone has supersonic missiles now, and has for a long, long time.
Conventional missiles have been supersonic for oh, 60 years or so now.
But yeah, I agree, the question is a stupid one. No, missile defense isn't obsolete, it'll just have to evolve to handle faster targets. Dare I say it...it's an arms race, and always will be.
This is absolutely true, but with one caveat: NASA shouldn't either write an RFP asking for "one size fits all" proposals, or shouldn't award the contract to a vendor who proposes doing that if that's not what they want. From the report, it sounds like that's what happened.
Fine. :-P Apostrophes are also used for contractions. People also put them in names for reasons I don't quite understand, but whatever. My intent was to correct the misperception that apostrophes are for plurals, which is horribly common these days. It's so common I won't be surprised if it becomes considered correct at some point in the future. $DIETY know's why people have 'started to think that every time there's an 's in a 'sentence there need's to be an apo'strophe before it.
> If someone at NSA want's to look at those
Is that a plural? So why the apostrophe, moron?
Oh, the irony of calling someone a moron because they used an apostrophe for a word that isn't a plural.
Just a tip. Apostrophes are for possessives, not plurals. My cars are parked. My car's registration is expired.
You know, proportion is a good thing. Texting during movies is darned annoying, and there should be a consequence. Like, oh, I don't know, a stern "Hey, knock it off!" Or having the theater staff escort you out. There are things where being shot is an appropriate consequence, but this isn't one, and that's lucky for you (and me, and everyone else), because I promise you at one time or another, we've all done something more offensive than text in a theater.
I can still recite the multiplication tables up to 12 with no real thought.
That might not have been a waste of time for you, but it was for me. Memorize such nonsense on your own time.
I disagree. I can do lots of useful math without a calculator. My kids, who were not forced to memorize such nonsense, can't. You might argue that calculators are ubiquitous, and you'd be right, but the related area in which they fail is not having any idea when answers are wildly wrong. They simply type and trust.
I was going to mention them. I've been considering buying an alarm myself for a while now, and they're the leading contender as far as I'm concerned. If I buy one, that's going to be the one. For the stuff I need, it's $400 for the system and I agree, I'd go with the $25/month plan just because I want the smartphone toys.
I get the storytelling part, actually, and accept stories are great ways to convey lessons. What I reject is the notion that because things happen a certain way in stories, we should assume they happen that way in real life. I object when we stop and don't draw the parallels between real life and the story to establish that the story is more than just a work of fiction. If you don't do that, you can "teach" lessons which are compelling (because they're well written), but just not true. Case in point, I grew up in the Christian tradition where the story of Abraham is a story about faith, trusting God, etc. Maybe I'm just not faithful enough, but if I ever hear voices telling me to tie my son up and stab him, I'm checking in to the nearest loony bin. I would instead point to the real life examples where "God" tells people to kill, and they do, and we throw them in jail or an asylum and call them crazy.
One thing that amused me when raising my own children is that for a good number of lessons in fables, fairy tales, etc, you can find one that teaches the opposite lesson. Once upon a time, I could rattle off a list of examples. My children are well past the age of fairy tales now.
You know what Sci-Fi can teach you about $REALLIFE? Nothing. Because it's fiction. You can learn things from real life due to this little thing called causality. In books, effect follows cause not necessarily because it really would in real life, but because the author chose it to happen.
Some brokerage house ran an ad years ago something like "What can a picket fence gate teach you about investing?" Of course the answer is the same. Absolutely nothing. However, you can learn about investing AND learn about picket fences and discover commonalities. In no way have you used what you learned about fences to understand investing.
Of course they should be free to sell it. There are research opportunities all over the place to do this, and I don't mind that one bit. The difference is they don't have police pulling you over to ask.
It's not anonymous. It has your DNA on it, which uniquely identifies you.
They aren't the same people. I wouldn't buy into it, and I've never been stoned, and am almost a non-drinker. I would just find getting pulled over and being asked for a cheek swab to be a bizarre and highly intrusive request.
I'd really like to hear from someone who was pulled over and refused to participate. If that was they end of it and they were allowed to drive away, it's still an abuse of power to have police stopping people to ask them to participate in a research study, but it's less bad than coercing people into participating.
Ford wouldn't have paid investors for losing money on their stock either. Nor should they. Do you think the government would have given GM the money had they profited? Of course not. Why do you think it should go the other way?