Those writing scripts are also said to be quite a bit more difficult to learn than something that uses an alphabet. As someone notes in a subthread, iconographs are most used in places where they eliminate the need to create different products for different language markets, they aren't gaining that much traction elsewhere. (for example, even when people include emoticons in their internet messages, they are rarely the substance of the message).
Having a few million in easily hidden and carried gold could be a fun game. If I am getting the numbers about right, 70 pounds should be worth somewhat more than 1 million dollars.
Your first paragraph is preposterous. Even as little as 1 billion dollars doesn't particularly need to be managed to secure a nice future for dozens of people (let's say you put it in bonds earning 1% (which would be hilariously bad), that's 10 million a year, it takes an utter jackass to successfully squander that much money (you could send 10 people to Harvard, buy a nice house and a Ferrari, and still have to decide to do with the other 7 million), never mind that you could, in an emergency, touch (probably a lot more than) 50 million of the principal without really causing a problem).
My computer is 85% toy, so I can't really justify a big budget to myself, but still, I'm sitting here wondering what someone from 2003 would say reading your comment.
Maybe in the U.S., at least a little bit. If you look to the rest of the world, more people are becoming middle class in India and China than even live in the U.S.
My TV doesn't even use 200 watts, and it isn't on all of the time. The five or six months of heating I do each year burns 3000 watt-years of propane (So it's like having more than 15 of my TVs on all year long). Saving 100 watts of electric wouldn't hurt my feelings any, but I can save considerably more power if I can increase the heating efficiency of my house by 5%.
What exactly do you mean by 'we can't afford it'? The U.S. currently makes nothing even resembling a passing attempt at providing care where it is most needed (on a medical basis), so that it compares poorly on that statistic to countries that actively have that as a goal is not surprising.
I don't think it is particularly sane for a society as wealthy as ours to structure health care the way we do, and I don't think the current structure is particularly efficient, but until incredibly wealthy people start flying out of this country to receive medical care, I'm not sure I'm going to believe that the care delivered here is worse, I'm going to wonder if maybe, just maybe, it is delivered with little regard to whether the benefits match the costs.
Except California is regulating their power industry in such a way that they don't really have much cause to shut down plants, even if the relatively small amount of energy consumed by TVs were reduced by half.
The 20th century is overwhelmingly a story of the poor getting richer. The rich might have gotten even richer, but the average poor person from 1900 would be happy to be an average poor person from 2000. And that is despite having to share resources with about 3 times as many people.
The thing we need to do though is look at corporations more critically; the supposed behind them is that they promote investment (by limiting personal liability), which is good for society. If they aren't benefiting society, they maybe they shouldn't enjoy that limited liability.
Slashdot Mirror
He deserves the royalties at least as much as Disney would if the deal to buy Marvel closes.
As far as I know, most residential heat pumps insert a closed loop into whatever heat sink they are using.
I only feed my horses bullets, and they likes it that way.
Just shoot them in the back of the head before they get a chance to leave the house. Solves all sorts of problems.
Those writing scripts are also said to be quite a bit more difficult to learn than something that uses an alphabet. As someone notes in a subthread, iconographs are most used in places where they eliminate the need to create different products for different language markets, they aren't gaining that much traction elsewhere. (for example, even when people include emoticons in their internet messages, they are rarely the substance of the message).
Is Branfuck a derivative of brainfuck that replaces the commands with the names of various grains?
Why? What if performance is an issue? And so on.
Hence the 'fun game'.
I wouldn't be shocked if it did get used as currency though (but the huge amounts of it sitting here and there might make that somewhat problematic).
Well, HBO continues to exist, so I suspect you will still be able to buy print where you are mostly paying for the news, rather than the ads.
I disagree. You can put all the stickers you want on my lawnmower, but once you remove the blade, it isn't a lawnmower anymore.
Doing something someone perceives as hostile, 'for their own good', is almost never the correct choice.
Having a few million in easily hidden and carried gold could be a fun game. If I am getting the numbers about right, 70 pounds should be worth somewhat more than 1 million dollars.
Your first paragraph is preposterous. Even as little as 1 billion dollars doesn't particularly need to be managed to secure a nice future for dozens of people (let's say you put it in bonds earning 1% (which would be hilariously bad), that's 10 million a year, it takes an utter jackass to successfully squander that much money (you could send 10 people to Harvard, buy a nice house and a Ferrari, and still have to decide to do with the other 7 million), never mind that you could, in an emergency, touch (probably a lot more than) 50 million of the principal without really causing a problem).
Australia has a glorious future ahead of it.
Think about the question, my answer (The details are important!), and how likely it is that I am actually that obtuse.
I don't know the specifics, but it does seem that Intel is heavily involved in USB.
My computer is 85% toy, so I can't really justify a big budget to myself, but still, I'm sitting here wondering what someone from 2003 would say reading your comment.
So how much more are the new TVs going to cost, and how much is administering the program going to cost?
What does "Ancay ouyay eadray isthay?" mean?
I read it a couple of times, but I can't make anything of it.
If we are going to be pedantic, I get the whole 21st century, not just the 40 years it would take for India alone to get to 400 million.
That's why I said it wouldn't hurt my feelings any, but it isn't real clear to me that the costs of this program are worth the benefits.
Maybe in the U.S., at least a little bit. If you look to the rest of the world, more people are becoming middle class in India and China than even live in the U.S.
My TV doesn't even use 200 watts, and it isn't on all of the time. The five or six months of heating I do each year burns 3000 watt-years of propane (So it's like having more than 15 of my TVs on all year long). Saving 100 watts of electric wouldn't hurt my feelings any, but I can save considerably more power if I can increase the heating efficiency of my house by 5%.
What exactly do you mean by 'we can't afford it'? The U.S. currently makes nothing even resembling a passing attempt at providing care where it is most needed (on a medical basis), so that it compares poorly on that statistic to countries that actively have that as a goal is not surprising.
I don't think it is particularly sane for a society as wealthy as ours to structure health care the way we do, and I don't think the current structure is particularly efficient, but until incredibly wealthy people start flying out of this country to receive medical care, I'm not sure I'm going to believe that the care delivered here is worse, I'm going to wonder if maybe, just maybe, it is delivered with little regard to whether the benefits match the costs.
Except California is regulating their power industry in such a way that they don't really have much cause to shut down plants, even if the relatively small amount of energy consumed by TVs were reduced by half.
The 20th century is overwhelmingly a story of the poor getting richer. The rich might have gotten even richer, but the average poor person from 1900 would be happy to be an average poor person from 2000. And that is despite having to share resources with about 3 times as many people.
The thing we need to do though is look at corporations more critically; the supposed behind them is that they promote investment (by limiting personal liability), which is good for society. If they aren't benefiting society, they maybe they shouldn't enjoy that limited liability.