An air conditioner does not reverse entropy, it expends energy in order to shift it around. For instance, there is a good chance that the information in your brain might decay as follows:
Buzzo Guzzo GBzzo GBRzo GBwzo GBwzq GBwuq
You can't just 'reverse' that, the original information is simply gone (well, maybe the cryo company has unbelievable tech and is able to keep track of the changes, but no, they don't).
Peak transfer isn't a particularly interesting workstation benchmark (If I were chasing performance, I might put a bunch of spinning disks in RAID 0 to cut down on latency, but the RAID isn't going to make the USB drive I am copying files to any faster, so the transfer rate isn't really that interesting).
And really, I wouldn't be shocked if OP was using software RAID.
It isn't just the knowing, there is also the bothering. For instance, buffer overflows and SQL injection are some of the most commonly exploited flaws in programs, and the prevention of both is well understood.
Well, my understanding of current genetic indicators is that they are merely predictive, not deterministic, so risk pooling should still work just fine.
The pie in the sky way to think about it is that advanced genetics research leads to treatments faster than it takes away risk pooling, so use of such information should probably be encouraged (and hopefully those treatments also get cheaper, but that is a tough argument lately). And to me, at some point, if the idea is to share costs, creating artificially information-limited pools doesn't seem like the right way to be doing it (and I can't think of any reason beyond cost sharing to create the artificially limited pools).
Of course, the problem isn't that a Swiss corporation goes to the trouble of writing the statement, it is that the Congressman reads the statement and still gets reelected.
There really isn't anything unethical about offering a specific service at a given price. Part of not wanting to insure people at risk for cancer just means that you don't want to take their money, not that you are trying to rip them off (that insurance companies can operate profitably today without genetic information indicates that they can probably serve people that they know are genetically predisposed, and if they can't, why should we limit the subsidy pool to their customer pool?).
Inserting all sorts of weird government mandates into what sorts of information insurance companies are allowed to use just ends up with a situation like we have today, where they barely operate as insurance companies and instead operate as socialized medicine providers for small (compared to society at large) groups of people. Basically, it's great to work at a big corporation, because there are lots of people there to help pay for your medical expenses, but if you don't, go die in the street (see, this is the part where I do think the wealthiest society to exist on earth should probably go ahead and try to mitigate the consequences of bad medical luck, I just think that regulating insurance companies is a bad way to do it).
So what? It isn't as if some big chunk of the population is actually genetically superior to the rest, insurance companies would have to be willing to do business with some people with 'bad' genes, and really, it isn't just the companies profits that benefit from better customer screening, their customers do too.
(To add some context, I would be fine with the United States instituting some sort of socialized coverage for conditions that are not insurable, the current system where those people get coverage as long as they win the employment lottery isn't any better...)
I graduated from a pretty good engineering school (but with an ME, not EE or CS), and what you call "Strong English writing and speaking skills", I would call "a passing familiarity with English".
People spent ages writing awkwardly phrased material with mediocre organization.
It's the thread police, the idea that 3 replies might only be topical in relation to the parent comment offends them mightily, so they try to hide those threads.
It would be sort of hard to drink that much beer and coffee (I guess you were probably using hyperbole, but it is an interesting aside), drinking a case in 8 hours means you are downing 12 ounces of liquid every 20 minutes, and the two pots of coffee would be another 120 ounces, so at the same rate, it would add another 3 hours.
Double the rate (1 can every 10 minutes is insane! Maybe not for the first couple, but after that...) and you are still talking about more than 5 hours.
Obviously I was trolling (why else would I possibly be marked troll), but to some extent that was my point, I don't really see why the so called 'black' vote would particularly identify with Obama, and looking at the numbers you have provided, it looks like they did (I don't really have the background to analyze the statistics, but clearly there is a democratic base involved in those numbers, and then some other group of people who change their mind now and then, if the base group is the full 83%, picking up the 12% of the swing vote, instead of 0%, is huge, and even if it is more like 15% and 27%, is is still significant).
Apple is also apparently worth twice as much per dollar of earnings (what I mean is, the market cap comparison ignores the fact that Dell and HP combined have more than twice the revenues (like 4 times) and earnings (only about twice as much) of Apple, both of which are a better indicator of the actual operations of the companies, rather than the stock market view that Apple is going to grow much more than the other two companies in the future; the better earnings/revenue is certainly part of the reason for the higher valuation).
Apple has better momentum right now, but Microsoft is still quite a lot more profitable (and they are a lot more exposed to business than Apple is, so they are getting hurt quite a bit more by the recession than Apple (adding to this, Apple tends to cater to higher end consumers, who are at least slightly less impacted the the recession, and the relative lack of success of Vista (relative lack, Vista still had more market share than OS X...))).
Slashdot Mirror
Did you read what you posted? In the last sentence there, it states that customers can claim money that has been redistributed.
I guess there could be some mistake in the copying or whatever.
An air conditioner does not reverse entropy, it expends energy in order to shift it around. For instance, there is a good chance that the information in your brain might decay as follows:
Buzzo
Guzzo
GBzzo
GBRzo
GBwzo
GBwzq
GBwuq
You can't just 'reverse' that, the original information is simply gone (well, maybe the cryo company has unbelievable tech and is able to keep track of the changes, but no, they don't).
You are not terribly alone:
http://www.goes.noaa.gov/browse.html
Developers.
Developers, developers, developers wasn't some hilarious line, it was a blatant statement that Microsoft knows where their bread is buttered.
Peak transfer isn't a particularly interesting workstation benchmark (If I were chasing performance, I might put a bunch of spinning disks in RAID 0 to cut down on latency, but the RAID isn't going to make the USB drive I am copying files to any faster, so the transfer rate isn't really that interesting).
And really, I wouldn't be shocked if OP was using software RAID.
Given that the SSDs are very nearly striped at the block level anyway, I can't imagine that RAID 0 is adding much more than flakiness.
The fact that the games existed in order to be recalled shows that the issue is with the countries, not with the gaming world.
It isn't just the knowing, there is also the bothering. For instance, buffer overflows and SQL injection are some of the most commonly exploited flaws in programs, and the prevention of both is well understood.
Well, my understanding of current genetic indicators is that they are merely predictive, not deterministic, so risk pooling should still work just fine.
The pie in the sky way to think about it is that advanced genetics research leads to treatments faster than it takes away risk pooling, so use of such information should probably be encouraged (and hopefully those treatments also get cheaper, but that is a tough argument lately). And to me, at some point, if the idea is to share costs, creating artificially information-limited pools doesn't seem like the right way to be doing it (and I can't think of any reason beyond cost sharing to create the artificially limited pools).
Oh, it's been years now.
Of course, the problem isn't that a Swiss corporation goes to the trouble of writing the statement, it is that the Congressman reads the statement and still gets reelected.
There really isn't anything unethical about offering a specific service at a given price. Part of not wanting to insure people at risk for cancer just means that you don't want to take their money, not that you are trying to rip them off (that insurance companies can operate profitably today without genetic information indicates that they can probably serve people that they know are genetically predisposed, and if they can't, why should we limit the subsidy pool to their customer pool?).
Inserting all sorts of weird government mandates into what sorts of information insurance companies are allowed to use just ends up with a situation like we have today, where they barely operate as insurance companies and instead operate as socialized medicine providers for small (compared to society at large) groups of people. Basically, it's great to work at a big corporation, because there are lots of people there to help pay for your medical expenses, but if you don't, go die in the street (see, this is the part where I do think the wealthiest society to exist on earth should probably go ahead and try to mitigate the consequences of bad medical luck, I just think that regulating insurance companies is a bad way to do it).
So what? It isn't as if some big chunk of the population is actually genetically superior to the rest, insurance companies would have to be willing to do business with some people with 'bad' genes, and really, it isn't just the companies profits that benefit from better customer screening, their customers do too.
(To add some context, I would be fine with the United States instituting some sort of socialized coverage for conditions that are not insurable, the current system where those people get coverage as long as they win the employment lottery isn't any better...)
So does that mean you would like to date a human being, or does it mean you would not like to date a human being?
I graduated from a pretty good engineering school (but with an ME, not EE or CS), and what you call "Strong English writing and speaking skills", I would call "a passing familiarity with English".
People spent ages writing awkwardly phrased material with mediocre organization.
It's the thread police, the idea that 3 replies might only be topical in relation to the parent comment offends them mightily, so they try to hide those threads.
If your product is really so much better, you won't need a government mandate to make it work.
If you are correct, you should be able to start such an institute and make a mountain of money.
Seriously ... ugh :( I went to college, then to graduate school for a PhD, then did a postdoc, now run a research group. Maybe I'm too picky :(
It would be sort of hard to drink that much beer and coffee (I guess you were probably using hyperbole, but it is an interesting aside), drinking a case in 8 hours means you are downing 12 ounces of liquid every 20 minutes, and the two pots of coffee would be another 120 ounces, so at the same rate, it would add another 3 hours.
Double the rate (1 can every 10 minutes is insane! Maybe not for the first couple, but after that...) and you are still talking about more than 5 hours.
It tastes like vomit to me.
Why yes, I have puked before, making me somewhat familiar with the delicious flavor of vomit.
Obviously I was trolling (why else would I possibly be marked troll), but to some extent that was my point, I don't really see why the so called 'black' vote would particularly identify with Obama, and looking at the numbers you have provided, it looks like they did (I don't really have the background to analyze the statistics, but clearly there is a democratic base involved in those numbers, and then some other group of people who change their mind now and then, if the base group is the full 83%, picking up the 12% of the swing vote, instead of 0%, is huge, and even if it is more like 15% and 27%, is is still significant).
You're like 6 hours after the first guy that said the same thing.
Apple is also apparently worth twice as much per dollar of earnings (what I mean is, the market cap comparison ignores the fact that Dell and HP combined have more than twice the revenues (like 4 times) and earnings (only about twice as much) of Apple, both of which are a better indicator of the actual operations of the companies, rather than the stock market view that Apple is going to grow much more than the other two companies in the future; the better earnings/revenue is certainly part of the reason for the higher valuation).
Apple has better momentum right now, but Microsoft is still quite a lot more profitable (and they are a lot more exposed to business than Apple is, so they are getting hurt quite a bit more by the recession than Apple (adding to this, Apple tends to cater to higher end consumers, who are at least slightly less impacted the the recession, and the relative lack of success of Vista (relative lack, Vista still had more market share than OS X...))).
You don't have to wonder that much, things like Sarbanes-Oxley make it pretty hard to move meaningful amounts of money around quietly.