Never happen. Anything less than the expected increase (always above inflation, of course) counts as a "cut" by the politician's opponents, and of course you can't "cut" welfare or defense, which means you have to increase the spending on those programs well beyond inflation. Since those are the biggest spenders in the budget, the result is an ever-growing budget with absolutely no chance of being balanced anytime soon.
You are absolutely right, what is needed is someone to say "everything gets a cut (a genuine, less-money-spent-than-last-year cut), no exceptions, period." The trouble is, no one has those kinds of balls, except maybe Ron Paul, and his election is doubtful.
Lithium-ion cells stored at around room-temperature and at full charge degrade at ~20% capacity per year (less if you store it at half-charge, but most people won't), which means after 2-3 years you are looking at about half capacity. After 5 years that will be much less than half. The first iPad came out less than 2 years ago, so they would still have 70% capacity at least. Recharge cycles also degrade performance, so if you charge it every two days or so that will be even worse. Talk to me again in 2 years and see if you are still happy with the battery life of the (unreplaceable) battery.
The fundamental difference, as I see it, is that a 5 year old PC still works perfectly fine and can run most modern programs now-a-days just fine (so long as you've taken decent care of keeping crud off it). Good luck doing the same thing with the iPad: assuming it still even works 5 years from now, the battery life will have decayed to the point where it will be barely usable, and if you think you will have the newest version of the OS available on it, excuse me while I laugh my ass of at your naiveté. Quite frankly, everyone already has a desktop. It is hardly surprising that the newest toy will sell like hotcakes for a while (anyone else remember the netbook craze a few years back?) until everyone realizes that while the device is cool and useful for some things, a regular PC is just straight up better in so many ways.
Are tablets cool? Yes. Are they useful for a few things? Yes. Are they more useful than a desktop or laptop? No. Are they as portable as a smartphone? No. Are they as easy to read on as a dedicated e-reader? No. I could go on, but you probably get the point.
Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said the law will give the tools to police to adequately deal with 21st-century technology, and said anyone opposing the laws favours "the rights of child pornographers and organized crime ahead of the rights of lawabiding citizens."
That's quite right, actually, I do "favor" their rights. They have a right to due process of law. Any government official who says they do not favor the rights of any individual under the law is not fit for office, and should probably be impeached. One of those rights is to privacy from government surveillance without a warrant.
Not that that quote even makes sense, anyways: anyone who opposes the bill favors the rights of everyone.
I wasn't entirely sure if they were measuring the final energy output of the projectile or the energy input into the system. I guessed the output since that seemed more useful as a measurement (plus it made the math a lot easier), but I don't know what TFA is using. 13kg is probably a bit heavy, so you are probably correct that the output is less than half due to energy loss.
If you look at the picture in TFA, the doors look, and according to TFA are designed, like they are capable of being opened in a tight parking lot. Hell, they look better than the regular doors for that (though not, of course, sliding doors, which they couldn't implement due to the design of the car). They aren't "gullwings", exactly, they pivot straight upwards, not outwards: it looks like they have another folding joint so they don't even need to expand outwards much, if at all, when opening.
Your rights are granted to you by society (i.e. the people, i.e. you).
Ha, that is most certainly not true. If it was, how do you justify saying "slavery was wrong"? Or don't you? Because if rights are only granted by society, then if society as a whole decides certain people don't deserve certain rights, then they don't get those rights and that is perfectly justified (if what you say is true). Perhaps you meant to add certain qualifiers.
You have to say there are certain rights that humans possess by being human. And then there are certain rights that society can grant later. Basic health care would be a good example: it isn't a basic human right, but it can be granted as a right by a society that passes a certain stage of wealth and medical technology.
By "we learned nothing" do you mean we didn't learn to stop relying on 40 year-old nuclear power plants built using 50-60 year old designs? Because I'm pretty sure building new designs shows that we did, in fact, learn exactly that.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It's different because property taxes a) are levied by local governments (not federal, which would actually be illegal under the Constitution), and b) go to pay infrastructure used to make your property useful in the first place (roads and the like). It isn't really a tax on wealth, exactly, more a tax on the value that the local government gives the property. In order to tax wealth itself, you would have to argue that the federal government similarly makes stock valuable (a small stretch, but plausible, I guess: defense and whatnot) and would be legal (which it wouldn't).
He settled the MS suit, actually (for an unannounced amount, but in the millions at least). I would assume that, like many people who find themselves with undeserved money, he blew it all on private jets, hookers, and blow, and now is looking for more (rather than going back to work). Also, TFS doesn't mention it, but quite a few companies have already settled. This is (one of) the problems with the legal system: it's easier and cheaper for big companies just to pay a few million than actually do the right thing and blow these stupid patents right the hell up.
Horses can't carry quite as much (especially not with armor), can't really navigate autonomously, and don't generally come with recharger plugs for equipment. Plus, the end game is to strap guns to these things and cut out a lot of the human element altogether.
There doesn't seem to be much on it that I can find on google, except a Washington Post article from 11 years ago, but apparently even minor wounds heal slowly (or not at all) in space. As for the blood clotting... IDK, maybe they are thinking because the blood won't pool up on your skin but float free? Not a problem with minor cuts, but in surgery I imagine it could be a huge issue. Basically, if you cut a vein, the blood can flow forth freely, which it doesn't do on Earth since the pooling blood clots and helps block further bleeding. I'm just guessing, though.
That RIAA chief has got to be the worst kind of sociopath.
Probably cheats on his wife.....with underage children prostitutes.
Screw that douchebag and whatever backstabbing he had to do to become the RIAA chief...
Yes, ad hominem attacks with absolutely zero evidence of any kind are definitely the way to invalidate his point that anti-SOPA people are using shady rhetorical tricks.
Well, TFA says the projectile travels at around 5,000mph leaving the barrel, and has ~32 megajoules of energy, so using KE=1/2mv^2 and some conversion, you get about 13kg (5000mph=2235m/s, [32e6]*2/[2235^2]=m=12.8)
The battery life problem, if you bothered to read even the summary instead of jumping to the comments to defend Apple, is because there isn't regular 4G coverage everywhere yet. In order for there to be an incentive to develop such widespread coverage, there must also be people willing to use that network (no massive network can be established entirely without users.) This means the only way good 4G coverage can ever happen is if there are issues with it in the early life cycle, and without those early adopters widespread 4G will never happen.
So, without Android adopting 4G, Apple would never be able to follow suit, unless they want to receive the same complaints. Not that that would stop them, necessarily. Did you like all those dropped calls with the early iPhone because you were stuck on AT&T?
Hint: should every site with an SSL cert from X not work because X is unreachable for whatever reason right this second?
Yes. Anyone conducting a MITM attack is practically necessarily in control of the users network, and will just block access to the CRL, which means they will never stop MITM attacks unless you do exactly that. And yes, I know that is the point of the change. My point is: they choose the wrong fix. Sites should only be listed as trusted if the browser really knows they can be (so far as possible, of course). Being "Secure" should meet a minimum standard, and failing that standard means the site should not be listed as "secure", but most browsers do. Choosing to simply ignore part of the established SSL standard is not the solution.
Opera does precisely this. It still used HTTPS (I think), but it doesn't list the page as being secure, since the page really has exactly the same security as any non-https site (for trust purposes).
Seriously, TFA doesn't even mention the F-35 as being a final candidate: this was more of a blow to the Eurofighter than the F-35. The F-35 is much higher spec than the Rafale (for one thing, it is a true stealth aircraft), while the Eurofighter and the Rafale are pretty close (solid 5t gen fighters, radar reduction but not stealth). Had they needed the F-35 specs, they probably would have bought it. They just weren't looking at that high-end an aircraft.
Slashdot Mirror
Never happen. Anything less than the expected increase (always above inflation, of course) counts as a "cut" by the politician's opponents, and of course you can't "cut" welfare or defense, which means you have to increase the spending on those programs well beyond inflation. Since those are the biggest spenders in the budget, the result is an ever-growing budget with absolutely no chance of being balanced anytime soon.
You are absolutely right, what is needed is someone to say "everything gets a cut (a genuine, less-money-spent-than-last-year cut), no exceptions, period." The trouble is, no one has those kinds of balls, except maybe Ron Paul, and his election is doubtful.
Lithium-ion cells stored at around room-temperature and at full charge degrade at ~20% capacity per year (less if you store it at half-charge, but most people won't), which means after 2-3 years you are looking at about half capacity. After 5 years that will be much less than half. The first iPad came out less than 2 years ago, so they would still have 70% capacity at least. Recharge cycles also degrade performance, so if you charge it every two days or so that will be even worse. Talk to me again in 2 years and see if you are still happy with the battery life of the (unreplaceable) battery.
The fundamental difference, as I see it, is that a 5 year old PC still works perfectly fine and can run most modern programs now-a-days just fine (so long as you've taken decent care of keeping crud off it). Good luck doing the same thing with the iPad: assuming it still even works 5 years from now, the battery life will have decayed to the point where it will be barely usable, and if you think you will have the newest version of the OS available on it, excuse me while I laugh my ass of at your naiveté. Quite frankly, everyone already has a desktop. It is hardly surprising that the newest toy will sell like hotcakes for a while (anyone else remember the netbook craze a few years back?) until everyone realizes that while the device is cool and useful for some things, a regular PC is just straight up better in so many ways.
Are tablets cool? Yes. Are they useful for a few things? Yes. Are they more useful than a desktop or laptop? No. Are they as portable as a smartphone? No. Are they as easy to read on as a dedicated e-reader? No. I could go on, but you probably get the point.
Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said the law will give the tools to police to adequately deal with 21st-century technology, and said anyone opposing the laws favours "the rights of child pornographers and organized crime ahead of the rights of lawabiding citizens."
That's quite right, actually, I do "favor" their rights. They have a right to due process of law. Any government official who says they do not favor the rights of any individual under the law is not fit for office, and should probably be impeached. One of those rights is to privacy from government surveillance without a warrant.
Not that that quote even makes sense, anyways: anyone who opposes the bill favors the rights of everyone.
I wasn't entirely sure if they were measuring the final energy output of the projectile or the energy input into the system. I guessed the output since that seemed more useful as a measurement (plus it made the math a lot easier), but I don't know what TFA is using. 13kg is probably a bit heavy, so you are probably correct that the output is less than half due to energy loss.
Yeah because torrents of copyrighted information are totally the same as a warrant that probably will result in a person's death.
I'm guessing you work for the RIAA.
If you look at the picture in TFA, the doors look, and according to TFA are designed, like they are capable of being opened in a tight parking lot. Hell, they look better than the regular doors for that (though not, of course, sliding doors, which they couldn't implement due to the design of the car). They aren't "gullwings", exactly, they pivot straight upwards, not outwards: it looks like they have another folding joint so they don't even need to expand outwards much, if at all, when opening.
Your rights are granted to you by society (i.e. the people, i.e. you).
Ha, that is most certainly not true. If it was, how do you justify saying "slavery was wrong"? Or don't you? Because if rights are only granted by society, then if society as a whole decides certain people don't deserve certain rights, then they don't get those rights and that is perfectly justified (if what you say is true). Perhaps you meant to add certain qualifiers.
You have to say there are certain rights that humans possess by being human. And then there are certain rights that society can grant later. Basic health care would be a good example: it isn't a basic human right, but it can be granted as a right by a society that passes a certain stage of wealth and medical technology.
Or just the bulk of people who would bother commenting on random totally insignificant videos (i.e. most of Youtube).
By "we learned nothing" do you mean we didn't learn to stop relying on 40 year-old nuclear power plants built using 50-60 year old designs? Because I'm pretty sure building new designs shows that we did, in fact, learn exactly that.
It's different because property taxes a) are levied by local governments (not federal, which would actually be illegal under the Constitution), and b) go to pay infrastructure used to make your property useful in the first place (roads and the like). It isn't really a tax on wealth, exactly, more a tax on the value that the local government gives the property. In order to tax wealth itself, you would have to argue that the federal government similarly makes stock valuable (a small stretch, but plausible, I guess: defense and whatnot) and would be legal (which it wouldn't).
Sorry, I meant to say: he initially won the MS suit, but it got overturned on appeal, and then settled it out of court. I wasn't clear.
He settled the MS suit, actually (for an unannounced amount, but in the millions at least). I would assume that, like many people who find themselves with undeserved money, he blew it all on private jets, hookers, and blow, and now is looking for more (rather than going back to work). Also, TFS doesn't mention it, but quite a few companies have already settled. This is (one of) the problems with the legal system: it's easier and cheaper for big companies just to pay a few million than actually do the right thing and blow these stupid patents right the hell up.
Horses can't carry quite as much (especially not with armor), can't really navigate autonomously, and don't generally come with recharger plugs for equipment. Plus, the end game is to strap guns to these things and cut out a lot of the human element altogether.
There doesn't seem to be much on it that I can find on google, except a Washington Post article from 11 years ago, but apparently even minor wounds heal slowly (or not at all) in space. As for the blood clotting... IDK, maybe they are thinking because the blood won't pool up on your skin but float free? Not a problem with minor cuts, but in surgery I imagine it could be a huge issue. Basically, if you cut a vein, the blood can flow forth freely, which it doesn't do on Earth since the pooling blood clots and helps block further bleeding. I'm just guessing, though.
He still doesn't get that what happened was the people who consume the content
Don't forget: quite a few of the people who actually create that content(as opposed to simply distribute it) opposed it too.
That RIAA chief has got to be the worst kind of sociopath.
Probably cheats on his wife.....with underage children prostitutes.
Screw that douchebag and whatever backstabbing he had to do to become the RIAA chief...
Yes, ad hominem attacks with absolutely zero evidence of any kind are definitely the way to invalidate his point that anti-SOPA people are using shady rhetorical tricks.
Because it costs more than or equal to 1$/person to run? Seems possible.
Well, TFA says the projectile travels at around 5,000mph leaving the barrel, and has ~32 megajoules of energy, so using KE=1/2mv^2 and some conversion, you get about 13kg (5000mph=2235m/s, [32e6]*2/[2235^2]=m=12.8)
The battery life problem, if you bothered to read even the summary instead of jumping to the comments to defend Apple, is because there isn't regular 4G coverage everywhere yet. In order for there to be an incentive to develop such widespread coverage, there must also be people willing to use that network (no massive network can be established entirely without users.) This means the only way good 4G coverage can ever happen is if there are issues with it in the early life cycle, and without those early adopters widespread 4G will never happen.
So, without Android adopting 4G, Apple would never be able to follow suit, unless they want to receive the same complaints. Not that that would stop them, necessarily. Did you like all those dropped calls with the early iPhone because you were stuck on AT&T?
He doesn't want CRLs. Chrome (and many other browsers) already use these kinds of blocklists, so basically he just wants to not use CRLs at all.
Hint: should every site with an SSL cert from X not work because X is unreachable for whatever reason right this second?
Yes. Anyone conducting a MITM attack is practically necessarily in control of the users network, and will just block access to the CRL, which means they will never stop MITM attacks unless you do exactly that. And yes, I know that is the point of the change. My point is: they choose the wrong fix. Sites should only be listed as trusted if the browser really knows they can be (so far as possible, of course). Being "Secure" should meet a minimum standard, and failing that standard means the site should not be listed as "secure", but most browsers do. Choosing to simply ignore part of the established SSL standard is not the solution.
Opera does precisely this. It still used HTTPS (I think), but it doesn't list the page as being secure, since the page really has exactly the same security as any non-https site (for trust purposes).
And Apple owning the tech would be a roadblock how, exactly? It's not like someone doing that would have any qualms about using the tech illegaly.
And we can thank science for WMDs, eugenics, pollution of the environment, human experimentation, and a list of other things far too long to put here.
Or maybe we can just put the blame where it belongs, which is on the people who actually do these evils and use science or religion as cover
Yes.
Seriously, TFA doesn't even mention the F-35 as being a final candidate: this was more of a blow to the Eurofighter than the F-35. The F-35 is much higher spec than the Rafale (for one thing, it is a true stealth aircraft), while the Eurofighter and the Rafale are pretty close (solid 5t gen fighters, radar reduction but not stealth). Had they needed the F-35 specs, they probably would have bought it. They just weren't looking at that high-end an aircraft.