Yeah, the tripling of the global population has nothing to do with stagnating (well, really, the slow growth of) standards of living, it is all American greed.
And goods are more expensive too (Actually, no, they are generally cheaper).
First, sports players are probably a lot smarter than you are claiming (it is rarefied air athletically, but also intellectually, there are plenty of humans for both to work).
Second, their pay is obscene, but that has to do with economic efficiency and network effects, not stupidity (the benefits of being able to discuss the sporting event socially distort the apparent value of running around chasing after a ball).
Third, there is plenty of research and science spending, even on a comparative basis.
Just claim that the country requesting extradition won't treat it in the same way as the legal system in the country that is being asked to grant the extradition.
Current electric rates are plenty manageable for most people and largely based on the price of coal. The price of coal is not going to skyrocket forever (because the demand curve becomes much more elastic when the price actually becomes noticeable, versus the status quo where increases in price go virtually unnoticed), and any significant increase in demand will eventually result in an increase in rates, which will lead to expediting new construction.
I guess there might be a period of a few years where peak rates are quite high, but in the long term, energy prices tend to go down (think about the effort it would take in 1700 to supply yourself with the equivalent of 100 dollars (in 2009 dollars, which is a couple of days of wages for most westerners) of gasoline, or compare the percentage of income spent on energy in 1970 to the percentage of income spent on energy in 2008 (which may be the new reality, or may be an above average outlier).
They simply won't know that Mike Hunt posts on the internet under the name cayenne8.
I suppose you would have to watch out for folks that do language analysis to try to associate various pseudonymous and anonymous postings with the name of the person who wrote them, but I don't think they actually exist.
Correctly interpreting the Constitution doesn't need to be part of the criteria for using the Constitution as a defense against charges of insubordination.
There needs to be a judicial process with ample room for interpretation of the soldier's true intent (so that people who claim that peeling potatoes is unconstitutional are dealt with properly), but that is less problematic than simply telling soldiers that orders are law, you are not to think (having soldiers that think probably impairs the operational efficiency of the military, but it is likely still worth it).
Is fairness best measured in units of currency? If you measure fairness in terms of percentage of income, or in terms of percentage of impact on quality of life, it is really easy to demonstrate that different styles of taxes are regressive.
You might not agree that those are reasonable measures of fairness, but that doesn't mean you get to define fairness for everybody else.
Of course it is just an opinion. Laws are just consensus opinions that have gone through a process of formalization, so it doesn't exactly eviscerate the idea when you call it an opinion.
Anyway, you are likely arguing about where the line should be drawn, not whether it should be drawn. For example, do you think a sitting president should be able to have a private conversation with his wife? If you think that is acceptable, then you think he has some right to privacy, and we are down to figuring out what shade of gray that we all agree is the best.
I would bet a nickel that being employed with benefits is more alluring than writing for O'Reilly or SAMS. I would bet a dime that Microsoft is organizationally functional enough to provide good writers with adequate compensation (their organizational bankruptcy is internet-hater fiction, they are among the most profitable companies in the world, that doesn't come from being incompetent).
I have read quite a few accounts of people who wrote technical books, and most of them say "I enjoyed it and it was worth it", but they also say "don't do it if you think you are going to make a lot of money".
If I knew you and knew that you tended to exaggerate, I would take everything you said with a grain (bucket sized) of salt, eliminating any shock value.
Also, I tend to view all intentional inaccuracies in the same light.
Yes, I would blame the small child for his actions. I would probably take his unfortunate parenting into account when deciding how to punish him, and I would certainly try to educate the child as to why what he did was improper, but you can't do either of those things if you don't make it clear to the child that he was responsible (sure, a young child is going to have trouble coming to grasp with the whole notion of responsibility, but the only way they will ever understand is if they are always held responsible, in some way, for their actions).
It is much the same with soldiers; that they are ordered merely means that additional people are also culpable for their actions, it absolves them of nothing.
Yes. In terms of absolute revenues and profits (rather than percent increase), Microsoft has been growing faster than Google for the entire time that Google has been a company. Also, Microsoft increases their revenues and profits by more than the entirety of Redhat's annual revenues and profits on a monthly basis.
Please take a look at Bodman's career; I'm no right wing nutjob, but all of the people claiming that Chu is so wonderfully pro-science are doing Bodman a disservice (because of all the other areas in the Bush administration that would actually show a much greater contrast...).
And yet you have the space and equipment for two entertainment areas. There are many lines that can be drawn, and many people that will draw each line.
I think people mostly worry about it because it is not terribly inconvenient, and it is something that they can loudly proclaim that they are doing. Not having how water would be downright unpleasant, line drying clothes takes work, and no AC would be uncomfortable.
(personally, I like my hot water and am too lazy to line dry clothes, but I haven't had AC for five years, and I only unplug stuff if I am going to be gone for weeks, and that is as much to prevent other issues as it is the parasitic loss...)
It would be interesting to evaluate how much of the power savings he is seeing are from watching less television (because of the introduced hassle), and how much are from lower parasitic draw.
No, most CO2 is produced so the affluent can have comfortable indoor temperatures wherever they choose to live, and so that they can have many other luxuries.
Parasitic electric consumption is a rounding error.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll sell you my 1997 Dell P2, it has fired up in the last 6 months.
Yeah, the tripling of the global population has nothing to do with stagnating (well, really, the slow growth of) standards of living, it is all American greed.
And goods are more expensive too (Actually, no, they are generally cheaper).
Also, information is less available (Hah!).
Controlling costs and providing goods and services at attractive prices is a great way to participate in society.
First, sports players are probably a lot smarter than you are claiming (it is rarefied air athletically, but also intellectually, there are plenty of humans for both to work).
Second, their pay is obscene, but that has to do with economic efficiency and network effects, not stupidity (the benefits of being able to discuss the sporting event socially distort the apparent value of running around chasing after a ball).
Third, there is plenty of research and science spending, even on a comparative basis.
Just claim that the country requesting extradition won't treat it in the same way as the legal system in the country that is being asked to grant the extradition.
This is different than using it successfully...
Actually, you have no idea what their needs and desires are.
Satellite is pretty well available, but then, it is shitty and expensive.
What the hell are you talking about?
Current electric rates are plenty manageable for most people and largely based on the price of coal. The price of coal is not going to skyrocket forever (because the demand curve becomes much more elastic when the price actually becomes noticeable, versus the status quo where increases in price go virtually unnoticed), and any significant increase in demand will eventually result in an increase in rates, which will lead to expediting new construction.
I guess there might be a period of a few years where peak rates are quite high, but in the long term, energy prices tend to go down (think about the effort it would take in 1700 to supply yourself with the equivalent of 100 dollars (in 2009 dollars, which is a couple of days of wages for most westerners) of gasoline, or compare the percentage of income spent on energy in 1970 to the percentage of income spent on energy in 2008 (which may be the new reality, or may be an above average outlier).
That's just a local minimum though. Eventually...
They simply won't know that Mike Hunt posts on the internet under the name cayenne8.
I suppose you would have to watch out for folks that do language analysis to try to associate various pseudonymous and anonymous postings with the name of the person who wrote them, but I don't think they actually exist.
Correctly interpreting the Constitution doesn't need to be part of the criteria for using the Constitution as a defense against charges of insubordination.
There needs to be a judicial process with ample room for interpretation of the soldier's true intent (so that people who claim that peeling potatoes is unconstitutional are dealt with properly), but that is less problematic than simply telling soldiers that orders are law, you are not to think (having soldiers that think probably impairs the operational efficiency of the military, but it is likely still worth it).
Is fairness best measured in units of currency? If you measure fairness in terms of percentage of income, or in terms of percentage of impact on quality of life, it is really easy to demonstrate that different styles of taxes are regressive.
You might not agree that those are reasonable measures of fairness, but that doesn't mean you get to define fairness for everybody else.
Of course it is just an opinion. Laws are just consensus opinions that have gone through a process of formalization, so it doesn't exactly eviscerate the idea when you call it an opinion.
Anyway, you are likely arguing about where the line should be drawn, not whether it should be drawn. For example, do you think a sitting president should be able to have a private conversation with his wife? If you think that is acceptable, then you think he has some right to privacy, and we are down to figuring out what shade of gray that we all agree is the best.
I would bet a nickel that being employed with benefits is more alluring than writing for O'Reilly or SAMS. I would bet a dime that Microsoft is organizationally functional enough to provide good writers with adequate compensation (their organizational bankruptcy is internet-hater fiction, they are among the most profitable companies in the world, that doesn't come from being incompetent).
I have read quite a few accounts of people who wrote technical books, and most of them say "I enjoyed it and it was worth it", but they also say "don't do it if you think you are going to make a lot of money".
As others have said, it is one of the largest machines ever constructed, and getting things to the surface of the moon is 'hard'.
Also, I suspect that you or some other wacko would complain about the plans to launch significant amounts of nuclear material.
If I knew you and knew that you tended to exaggerate, I would take everything you said with a grain (bucket sized) of salt, eliminating any shock value.
Also, I tend to view all intentional inaccuracies in the same light.
Please care enough about your readers to write a shorter post.
Yes, I would blame the small child for his actions. I would probably take his unfortunate parenting into account when deciding how to punish him, and I would certainly try to educate the child as to why what he did was improper, but you can't do either of those things if you don't make it clear to the child that he was responsible (sure, a young child is going to have trouble coming to grasp with the whole notion of responsibility, but the only way they will ever understand is if they are always held responsible, in some way, for their actions).
It is much the same with soldiers; that they are ordered merely means that additional people are also culpable for their actions, it absolves them of nothing.
Yes. In terms of absolute revenues and profits (rather than percent increase), Microsoft has been growing faster than Google for the entire time that Google has been a company. Also, Microsoft increases their revenues and profits by more than the entirety of Redhat's annual revenues and profits on a monthly basis.
Well, he only has 1,459 days to do nothing, and then you either get to eat crow, or holler "I told you so."
Either way, I recommend taking it 1 day at a time.
Please take a look at Bodman's career; I'm no right wing nutjob, but all of the people claiming that Chu is so wonderfully pro-science are doing Bodman a disservice (because of all the other areas in the Bush administration that would actually show a much greater contrast...).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Bodman
And yet you have the space and equipment for two entertainment areas. There are many lines that can be drawn, and many people that will draw each line.
I think people mostly worry about it because it is not terribly inconvenient, and it is something that they can loudly proclaim that they are doing. Not having how water would be downright unpleasant, line drying clothes takes work, and no AC would be uncomfortable.
(personally, I like my hot water and am too lazy to line dry clothes, but I haven't had AC for five years, and I only unplug stuff if I am going to be gone for weeks, and that is as much to prevent other issues as it is the parasitic loss...)
It would be interesting to evaluate how much of the power savings he is seeing are from watching less television (because of the introduced hassle), and how much are from lower parasitic draw.
No, most CO2 is produced so the affluent can have comfortable indoor temperatures wherever they choose to live, and so that they can have many other luxuries.
Parasitic electric consumption is a rounding error.