I agree with your premise, but many libraries, in addition to papering over browser differences, offer APIs that are more attractive than the DOM (for instance, CSS selectors, which are much nicer than element collection and node traversal).
Browsers are adding selectors, but javascript implementations have been available for ~5 years ( http://paulirish.com/2008/javascript-css-selector-engine-timeline/ ), waiting for the feature to be standardized and implemented at the browser level isn't something you can reasonably expect everyone to do.
Maybe. I don't think it is self evident that a great deal of U.S. travel occurs between geographically close population centers (High speed rail between New York and Los Angeles isn't going to attract very many passengers, unless it is vastly cheaper than air travel).
There are all sorts of places where it would be nice to have, but I don't think there are all that many places where it makes a lot of economic sense.
Figure the percentage of federal dollars vs fare dollars for each and your head will explode. Even if you assume that the average flight costs ~$100, the 700 million annual passenger flights makes a nice big number:
For the first article, I think you are referring to the following:
Do you follow a reasonable food plan? Be aware that eating too few calories is just as damaging as eating too many calories over the course of a day. Eating too few calories puts your body into starvation mode and prevents weight loss.
Part 4 of the Web MD article contains the following:
"But when you go back to eating normally, your metabolism doesn't readjust and therefore you need fewer calories than before -- otherwise known as the yo-yo syndrome."
Neither of those are in any way inconsistent with what I have been saying (and neither refer to starvation leading to weight gain; the Web MD article refers to starvation making it easier to gain weight later, after restoring your diet), that you can't starve yourself to weight gain. You can starve yourself for a while and push your body into a 'starvation mode' that makes it easier to gain weight if you increase the calories that you consume, but that is not starvation.
This is a decent way to make searching the encrypted content easier, but it doesn't offload any processing to the server (any indexing work would need to be done on a client with access to the data, prior to encryption (or after decryption)).
The meta trick in such situations is to request something very expensive that you can sort of justify, but do not in any way need. This way, you always have something easy to cut, and when things go wrong, you get a ridiculous thing to play with.
Or you could say that consumers should factor DRM into their purchasing decisions. If I had an annual $15,000 entertainment budget and knew that I was going to be flying all over the place for 3 months, I really wouldn't give a shit about the DRM on the Kindle (and my impression is that the market in general has a less sophisticated view of DRM than I do, so choosing not to participate in the market probably won't have any impact...).
I find myself wondering how much of a thermostat adjustment this is equivalent to (then geography gets involved, some buildings get electric winter heat, others get extra AC load).
In Michigan, the use tax for lots of people is less than $20 (based on AGI). That isn't worth pursuing (but I suppose it is convenient if the individual is being otherwise investigated, it shows a pattern of incorrect statements).
How do you view Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid taxes, and state taxes? Are they personal income taxes? Is the "employer share" of the entitlement taxes an income tax, or is it an employment tax (I see employment taxes as a joke, the business treats them as a cost and thus lowers the salary that they are willing to offer, effectively taxing the employee)?
Those taxes contributed an additional 15-20% on top of nominal federal rates for most taxpayers (chop 7.5% off of those if you think employment taxes don't effect personal income).
In Michigan, the use tax (which is the sales tax companion here) is (roughly) 0.04% of AGI for the sum of purchases of less than $1,000 (the purchases can optionally be itemized, but that only makes sense if you have high income and low purchases). So someone earning $100,000 and purchasing, say, $2,000 of online goods, would go from paying $44 of use tax to paying $120 of sales tax.
So I agree that it won't destroy the businesses, but it isn't quite the case that consumers should have already been paying the same amount of tax.
Inbred, try to get it right. Or did you mean to imply that I am inside a loaf?
Anyway, as I implied above, you are reading something into the documents that you linked that is not in the documents that you have linked. In point of fact, exactly none of them refer to gaining weight while in a period of starvation.
No, I'm not fucking dumb. You seem very strongly convinced that starvation means "less calories than are optimal", whereas I am equally stubbornly convinced that starvation means "less calories than are necessary".
If you eat less calories than are necessary for survival, you will lose weight. Full stop.
The dilemma is in deciding if the other guy thinks you are on his team, not in deciding whether both parties want to go to prison or not, and for how long (because they obviously do not want to go to prison for any length of time).
Your astronomy is poor. If you take the U.S. debt as $100 trillion, there is still a factor of 1 million to go before it is larger than the number of starts in the universe.
I'm not happy with the debt load, it should be far lower, but it is important to point out that the U.S. economy generates something like $100,000 of income each year for each household. At that level, the debt is entirely serviceable (but it is quickly running away from serviceable).
Slashdot Mirror
That excessively drunk guy you overheard at the bar last Saturday.
I talked to a trucker who was stopped at a weigh station, because his truck was overweight. He waited until it closed and then left.
I agree with your premise, but many libraries, in addition to papering over browser differences, offer APIs that are more attractive than the DOM (for instance, CSS selectors, which are much nicer than element collection and node traversal).
Browsers are adding selectors, but javascript implementations have been available for ~5 years ( http://paulirish.com/2008/javascript-css-selector-engine-timeline/ ), waiting for the feature to be standardized and implemented at the browser level isn't something you can reasonably expect everyone to do.
Maybe. I don't think it is self evident that a great deal of U.S. travel occurs between geographically close population centers (High speed rail between New York and Los Angeles isn't going to attract very many passengers, unless it is vastly cheaper than air travel).
There are all sorts of places where it would be nice to have, but I don't think there are all that many places where it makes a lot of economic sense.
That's Bullshit.
Figure the percentage of federal dollars vs fare dollars for each and your head will explode. Even if you assume that the average flight costs ~$100, the 700 million annual passenger flights makes a nice big number:
http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/air_carrier_traffic_statistics/airtraffic/annual/1981_present.html
For the first article, I think you are referring to the following:
Do you follow a reasonable food plan? Be aware that eating too few calories is just as damaging as eating too many calories over the course of a day. Eating too few calories puts your body into starvation mode and prevents weight loss.
Part 4 of the Web MD article contains the following:
"But when you go back to eating normally, your metabolism doesn't readjust and therefore you need fewer calories than before -- otherwise known as the yo-yo syndrome."
Neither of those are in any way inconsistent with what I have been saying (and neither refer to starvation leading to weight gain; the Web MD article refers to starvation making it easier to gain weight later, after restoring your diet), that you can't starve yourself to weight gain. You can starve yourself for a while and push your body into a 'starvation mode' that makes it easier to gain weight if you increase the calories that you consume, but that is not starvation.
I can't see how to do it, but I'm not ready to say that it can't be done (in any case, my saying so wouldn't mean very much).
Do you think that the vast majority of Mac users have attended a conference (especially a technical conference...) or have not attended a conference?
If technical users are 5% of the user base, speaking in generalities is a reasonable thing to do.
This is a decent way to make searching the encrypted content easier, but it doesn't offload any processing to the server (any indexing work would need to be done on a client with access to the data, prior to encryption (or after decryption)).
If the array is cheaper to buy, probably not. Especially if it uses more materials and is still cheaper.
I guess buying the highest performance Intel chip would throw that off quite a bit, but I doubt that is what you were talking about.
First fact: Louisville
Second fact: Slugger
Sure you are. That you open yourself up to various legal consequences is quite different from not being allowed to do it.
Point out that bullet point.
The meta trick in such situations is to request something very expensive that you can sort of justify, but do not in any way need. This way, you always have something easy to cut, and when things go wrong, you get a ridiculous thing to play with.
Or you could say that consumers should factor DRM into their purchasing decisions. If I had an annual $15,000 entertainment budget and knew that I was going to be flying all over the place for 3 months, I really wouldn't give a shit about the DRM on the Kindle (and my impression is that the market in general has a less sophisticated view of DRM than I do, so choosing not to participate in the market probably won't have any impact...).
I find myself wondering how much of a thermostat adjustment this is equivalent to (then geography gets involved, some buildings get electric winter heat, others get extra AC load).
In Michigan, the use tax for lots of people is less than $20 (based on AGI). That isn't worth pursuing (but I suppose it is convenient if the individual is being otherwise investigated, it shows a pattern of incorrect statements).
How do you view Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid taxes, and state taxes? Are they personal income taxes? Is the "employer share" of the entitlement taxes an income tax, or is it an employment tax (I see employment taxes as a joke, the business treats them as a cost and thus lowers the salary that they are willing to offer, effectively taxing the employee)?
Those taxes contributed an additional 15-20% on top of nominal federal rates for most taxpayers (chop 7.5% off of those if you think employment taxes don't effect personal income).
In Michigan, the use tax (which is the sales tax companion here) is (roughly) 0.04% of AGI for the sum of purchases of less than $1,000 (the purchases can optionally be itemized, but that only makes sense if you have high income and low purchases). So someone earning $100,000 and purchasing, say, $2,000 of online goods, would go from paying $44 of use tax to paying $120 of sales tax.
So I agree that it won't destroy the businesses, but it isn't quite the case that consumers should have already been paying the same amount of tax.
Inbred, try to get it right. Or did you mean to imply that I am inside a loaf?
Anyway, as I implied above, you are reading something into the documents that you linked that is not in the documents that you have linked. In point of fact, exactly none of them refer to gaining weight while in a period of starvation.
That seems more aptly described as "The doormats dilemma".
No, I'm not fucking dumb. You seem very strongly convinced that starvation means "less calories than are optimal", whereas I am equally stubbornly convinced that starvation means "less calories than are necessary".
If you eat less calories than are necessary for survival, you will lose weight. Full stop.
Have a nice day.
The dilemma is in deciding if the other guy thinks you are on his team, not in deciding whether both parties want to go to prison or not, and for how long (because they obviously do not want to go to prison for any length of time).
Your astronomy is poor. If you take the U.S. debt as $100 trillion, there is still a factor of 1 million to go before it is larger than the number of starts in the universe.
I'm not happy with the debt load, it should be far lower, but it is important to point out that the U.S. economy generates something like $100,000 of income each year for each household. At that level, the debt is entirely serviceable (but it is quickly running away from serviceable).