Dude, you have no idea how wrong you are. The new data analytics tools in excel are beyond anything you could expect. They rival some stand-alone business intelligence analytics tools. They have the capability to pull in arbitrarily large datasets and manipulate them in an analytics cube manner. Really, the analysis cubes in excel are more than worth the price of the entire office suite. (if you happen to need that sort of thing)
The problem with this comes when you try to overclock. Then as the speed builds you end up in an overboost situation and that leads to detonation problems. To combat this you need a BOV (blow off valve) to bleed the extra bits from stdout so that proper levels of turbo boost are maintained. There are several after market BOV manufacturers available, but you have to integrate them with the turbo boost controller to get full control.
Cool idea. You don't need a reusable vehicle for that though. A single payload faring could hold even more kill vehicles that autonomously track to their targets. The part where the mini-shuttle comes back with a payload bay is the interesting bit. What in the world would you keep in there? It would have to be something that you want to get back. I guess you could capture enemy spy satellites, but they are usually way too big to fit in the payload bay of this little guy.
It would be great for various near-space sample capture and return missions, but that sounds awfully expensive. Usually those missions are ride-along shuttle experiments or more old fashioned single purpose vehicles.
Unless you count the speaker of the house under Bush (Pelosi) and the Senate Majority Leader (Reid). They both repeatedly called Bush treasonous. They both repeatedly compared him with Hitler. They both were associated with calls for trying Bush for war crimes. Hell, Pelosi even went so far as to decry Bush for torture policies that she personally was involved with through her congressional oversight role. You've got hypocrisy, hyperbole and "you can't compromise with that" intransigence" all rolled into one right there. Your memory is apparently quite short. I'm surprised that someone who quotes love of freedom in their tagline would be so enamored of this administration. They've taken Bush's wide ranging assaults on freedom (via things like the Patriot Act) and expanded on them, while adding new assaults on financial and personal freedoms and levels of secrecy that make the prior administration look positively forthcoming. This isn't exactly a golden era for liberty.
This is an analysis with one eye closed. Tip O'Neill and Reagan were as far apart as you can get on the political spectrum, but they actively worked together on many different pieces of legislation. Clinton owes a large percentage of his legacy to legislation that was pushed by Newt Gingrich. Late in the Clinton administration this cooperative/adversarial relationship began to seriously break down. During Bush II it pretty much died. Obama took the reigns with completely unassailable majorities in both houses and the White House and Congressional leadership governed that way, aggressively leaving the opposition out of even the most trivial policy discussions. During this period the Republicans couldn't obstruct a damn thing. They were able to get a handful of democrats to vote with them in opposition on a few select issues - but calling those "Republican obstructionism" is quite the stretch. This all changed with the Mass. election. Now the Republican opposition actually has a chit in the game, albeit a very small one. The White House and Congressional leadership have not come around on this yet, and are still governing as if they have an unassailable majority. After the mid-term election shaves a few more seats off of his majority I think we'll see the President begin to make good on those campaign promises to work across party lines on a few select issues. And magically the filibusters will fade into memory.
Funny! Except these days it seems to have come full circle and it is mostly the progressive left that is in favor of state censorship of ideas they oppose. Apparently if you live long enough, you see everything.
That's a nice sentiment. Too bad it is just empty rhetoric. Where the rubber meets the road, the President killed the highly successful voucher program in Washington DC - actions defensible only as a chit tossed to the public teachers unions. And that's action he took before the referenced editorial was written. Unfortunately, this has been his M.O. - using the language of the right but governing from the left. It is actually a very effective rhetorical technique for a politician to use. Claiming that the NYT is taking on the unions because they toed the White House rhetorical line is not really that strong of an argument.
I can't pretend that I know Jaime Escalante's career or opinions in detail - although his opinions on bilingual education and other union-opposed ideas are documented in the referenced article. A little googling shows that he "thought the union was going to focus on how to improve our skills. But they're more interested in politics than kids." In an article memorializing his career and legacy, it is sad to hold up a milquetoast administration cheerleading piece as an example of "taking on the unions", when the speech in question is really a cover piece designed to deflect attention from the real actions being taken, both great and small, that are bulwarks to the teachers unions.
One would think so. But if you read the fine article from Reason magazine, you'll see why that will never happen - at least not the public schools. In fact, the school he transformed worked very hard to undo all of his good works. Quite successfully too. Apparently, all evidence of math and calculus prowess and teacher competence have been eradicated at Garfield since he was pushed out.
Obviously there was a backlog of requests that had not previously had any action taken - including denying. The 444k requests and the 466 exemptions are not from the same data set. There is likely a large overlap, but they are different requests.
If it were the same requests it would be worded "There were 444k requests in 2009, 300k of which have been denied, 100k of which have not been acted on and 44k have been fulfilled. " or something similar. They probably didn't provide the data in a format where the AP could tell what happened to the specific requests. Since it took 3 months to get these numbers tabulated, they probably just had to run with what they got, rather than waiting another 3 months for a clarification.
There's always the "youngster is an outcast/misfit who slowly discovers his special abilities. He takes on a great enemy who is too powerful for the grownups and eventually saves the world." story line.
Read the article, or even the summary posted here. It's not a matter of the recipient (or sender) posting the contents, it's a question of the ISP (hence: third party) revealing the information.
Now what's missing from this is that the investigators had a subpoena according to the article. I'm not clear on how this violates the Fourth Amendment, in that case. Isn't that exactly what we want the government to do and to be able to do when investigating an alleged crime?
In this case the police officer and the prosecutor gave false testimony to a grand jury to get an indictment. They also knew that no crime had been committed, yet subpoenaed his email and phone records without a warrant - lacking probable cause to do so because they knew no crime had been committed. The court found that they indeed did these things, but it was OK, because they are covered by absolute immunity as agents of the state. Basically they found that it was legal for these guys to frame an innocent man.
Holy crap, that was a terrifying read. Basically the appeals court found that the prosecutor and cop in the case were granted Absolute Immunity from prosecution for their actions in intentionally framing this guy for multiple felony and misdemeanor crimes. The appeals court found that the plaintiff did indeed get falsely accused, and that the prosecutor knowingly participated in presenting false testimony to get indictments - but the poor guy has no recourse.
Whoa there, Mr. Extremist. What's with all this "reading the constitution" stuff? Don't you know that healthcare is really important? Breyer and Stevens have both made it clear in recent opinions and dissents that 'really important' trumps the plain language of the constitution. Get with the program!
In fact, check out Breyer's Wikipedia page for a lesson in what "constitutional" means.
On the bench, Breyer generally takes a pragmatic approach to constitutional issues, interested more in producing coherence and continuity in the law than in following doctrinal, historical or textual strictures
Not that this "flexibility" with respect to the letter of the law makes him a friend of liberty:
However, Breyer is also recognized to be deferential to the interests of law enforcement and to legislative judgments in the Supreme Court's First Amendment rulings.
Nice. So at least now you can be clear on the whole "reading the constitution" thing.
Check the article and the sidebar link to another jedi church article. This is a tongue in cheek protest against Islamic headdress requirements and exceptions made for their faith. Both articles mention Muslim women wearing their headdress in the same establishment - so this is their way of grinding that axe. Judging by their age, appearance and employment status, I would wager that there's a bit of anti-immigrant xenophobia involved in their attitudes, but the reporters mercifully didn't give them a soapbox for any unrelated preaching.
I don't know about the guy from TFA, but lawyers read lawyerese much faster than literature professors read novels. I work with dozens of lawyers, and I'm always amazed at their ability to scan through large, complex documents and pull out the relevant bits in very short order. In fact, I spent about 2 hours reading a large contract yesterday and didn't get much interesting from it. I passed it on to our law team for review and they had a dozen changes ready within 15 minutes. Legalese is structured language that allows well-trained priests in the temple to quickly gain information that is inscrutable to the unwashed masses.
Counter example - Lake Worth Florida - all utilities are city owned. My sister-in-law lives there and has the worst service and prices in the region. I can't say I've been overly impressed with FPL (although they manage disasters that make your scary tornado look piddly), but my experience with Duke power was pretty good, and I was with a small CO-OP in Georgia that was fine. Maybe your anecdotal evidence is just that.... anecdotal.
You miss the point of herd immunity. The reason the one person who was immunized caught the measles is because a single, non-immunized person brought the disease in from outside. They then spread it to another dozen people who were not immunized. In a group of 450 immunized people, one person had low immunity and caught the disease because they were given a relatively large exposure risk. That is what herd immunity is all about.
Let's say that the one person who went to Romania had been immunized... then the one immunized person would never have caught the disease. Alternately, if the one person who went to Romania had been the one person in the 500 member herd with low immunity, only 1 person would have caught the disease. Either way, at least a dozen fewer people would have been infected, and if it was random chance as to which person had low immunity, full immunization would have reduced his risk of getting the disease by 500x. There's your herd effect.
No immunization is ever likely to be 100% effective, but if you can get everyone immunized, the disease has no transmission vector to live and find the few susceptible individuals.
Ok, I admit it. I rented Twilight. Not for my wife, either. I was just curious. You know.... an experimental phase.
You know what I learned? I'm getting old. 'Cause that movie sucked hard. Holy crap, was that one boring, boring, boring movie. I can't really convey how terrible it was. And the way that I know I'm now officially getting old is that I can't even see how a pre-teen could find it entertaining. It didn't even really do a good job of conveying teen angst, or alienation, or much of anything. Just a lot of sullen looks and staring contests.
Actually, the only way I can really describe it is as the bastard lovechild of MTV's "The Hills" fake reality show and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". Only instead of somewhat interesting characters and lots of action in a teen-angsty world, you get "The Hills" style crap dialog with lots of long pauses and staring into the distance. Even the action was boring.
I cannot for the life of me see how anyone old enough to have ever seen an actual movie before could have rated that thing anything other than a complete zero. It wasn't even good enough to be bad.. in fact it was kind of orthogonal to anything on the good/bad scale. It was just a big, lame, slow, turd that never went anywhere.
There. I got that off my chest. Ok. I feel better now that I admitted it.
I think you'll find that even a cursory reading of history will show that European countries have been doing a lot more than implementing coups and installing petty dictators for a long, long, long time. Like longer than the United States of America has been in existence. In fact, pretty much every country that is not in Europe has been occupied by European forces at some point. Those diamonds you are talking about are moving through a European monopoly cartel, all of those factions in African countries are in the aftermath of colonial Europe. In the "who did more badness" contest, the USA barely even bothered to show up.
I think they're pretty happy if you take a coin or bill out of circulation. Since it costs them less than the face value of the coin to mint it, you've just increased the value of the currency (micro-incrementally).
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, the relationship progression these days goes: toothbrush > drawer > keys > move in > engaged > married ...
{the cynic in me wants to add ' > divorce ' to the progression}
The conclusion is obvious... The iPad used Steve's trademarked reality distortion field to travel back in time to August and destroy netbook sales.
Dude, you have no idea how wrong you are. The new data analytics tools in excel are beyond anything you could expect. They rival some stand-alone business intelligence analytics tools. They have the capability to pull in arbitrarily large datasets and manipulate them in an analytics cube manner. Really, the analysis cubes in excel are more than worth the price of the entire office suite. (if you happen to need that sort of thing)
The problem with this comes when you try to overclock. Then as the speed builds you end up in an overboost situation and that leads to detonation problems. To combat this you need a BOV (blow off valve) to bleed the extra bits from stdout so that proper levels of turbo boost are maintained. There are several after market BOV manufacturers available, but you have to integrate them with the turbo boost controller to get full control.
Hope that helps....
Cool idea. You don't need a reusable vehicle for that though. A single payload faring could hold even more kill vehicles that autonomously track to their targets. The part where the mini-shuttle comes back with a payload bay is the interesting bit. What in the world would you keep in there? It would have to be something that you want to get back. I guess you could capture enemy spy satellites, but they are usually way too big to fit in the payload bay of this little guy.
It would be great for various near-space sample capture and return missions, but that sounds awfully expensive. Usually those missions are ride-along shuttle experiments or more old fashioned single purpose vehicles.
Unless you count the speaker of the house under Bush (Pelosi) and the Senate Majority Leader (Reid). They both repeatedly called Bush treasonous. They both repeatedly compared him with Hitler. They both were associated with calls for trying Bush for war crimes. Hell, Pelosi even went so far as to decry Bush for torture policies that she personally was involved with through her congressional oversight role. You've got hypocrisy, hyperbole and "you can't compromise with that" intransigence" all rolled into one right there. Your memory is apparently quite short. I'm surprised that someone who quotes love of freedom in their tagline would be so enamored of this administration. They've taken Bush's wide ranging assaults on freedom (via things like the Patriot Act) and expanded on them, while adding new assaults on financial and personal freedoms and levels of secrecy that make the prior administration look positively forthcoming. This isn't exactly a golden era for liberty.
This is an analysis with one eye closed. Tip O'Neill and Reagan were as far apart as you can get on the political spectrum, but they actively worked together on many different pieces of legislation. Clinton owes a large percentage of his legacy to legislation that was pushed by Newt Gingrich. Late in the Clinton administration this cooperative/adversarial relationship began to seriously break down. During Bush II it pretty much died. Obama took the reigns with completely unassailable majorities in both houses and the White House and Congressional leadership governed that way, aggressively leaving the opposition out of even the most trivial policy discussions. During this period the Republicans couldn't obstruct a damn thing. They were able to get a handful of democrats to vote with them in opposition on a few select issues - but calling those "Republican obstructionism" is quite the stretch. This all changed with the Mass. election. Now the Republican opposition actually has a chit in the game, albeit a very small one. The White House and Congressional leadership have not come around on this yet, and are still governing as if they have an unassailable majority. After the mid-term election shaves a few more seats off of his majority I think we'll see the President begin to make good on those campaign promises to work across party lines on a few select issues. And magically the filibusters will fade into memory.
Funny! Except these days it seems to have come full circle and it is mostly the progressive left that is in favor of state censorship of ideas they oppose. Apparently if you live long enough, you see everything.
Come meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Sheesh. 40 years of getting fooled again.
That's a nice sentiment. Too bad it is just empty rhetoric. Where the rubber meets the road, the President killed the highly successful voucher program in Washington DC - actions defensible only as a chit tossed to the public teachers unions. And that's action he took before the referenced editorial was written. Unfortunately, this has been his M.O. - using the language of the right but governing from the left. It is actually a very effective rhetorical technique for a politician to use. Claiming that the NYT is taking on the unions because they toed the White House rhetorical line is not really that strong of an argument.
I can't pretend that I know Jaime Escalante's career or opinions in detail - although his opinions on bilingual education and other union-opposed ideas are documented in the referenced article. A little googling shows that he "thought the union was going to focus on how to improve our skills. But they're more interested in politics than kids." In an article memorializing his career and legacy, it is sad to hold up a milquetoast administration cheerleading piece as an example of "taking on the unions", when the speech in question is really a cover piece designed to deflect attention from the real actions being taken, both great and small, that are bulwarks to the teachers unions.
One would think so. But if you read the fine article from Reason magazine, you'll see why that will never happen - at least not the public schools. In fact, the school he transformed worked very hard to undo all of his good works. Quite successfully too. Apparently, all evidence of math and calculus prowess and teacher competence have been eradicated at Garfield since he was pushed out.
Obviously there was a backlog of requests that had not previously had any action taken - including denying. The 444k requests and the 466 exemptions are not from the same data set. There is likely a large overlap, but they are different requests. If it were the same requests it would be worded "There were 444k requests in 2009, 300k of which have been denied, 100k of which have not been acted on and 44k have been fulfilled. " or something similar. They probably didn't provide the data in a format where the AP could tell what happened to the specific requests. Since it took 3 months to get these numbers tabulated, they probably just had to run with what they got, rather than waiting another 3 months for a clarification.
There's always the "youngster is an outcast/misfit who slowly discovers his special abilities. He takes on a great enemy who is too powerful for the grownups and eventually saves the world." story line.
Read the article, or even the summary posted here. It's not a matter of the recipient (or sender) posting the contents, it's a question of the ISP (hence: third party) revealing the information.
Now what's missing from this is that the investigators had a subpoena according to the article. I'm not clear on how this violates the Fourth Amendment, in that case. Isn't that exactly what we want the government to do and to be able to do when investigating an alleged crime?
In this case the police officer and the prosecutor gave false testimony to a grand jury to get an indictment. They also knew that no crime had been committed, yet subpoenaed his email and phone records without a warrant - lacking probable cause to do so because they knew no crime had been committed. The court found that they indeed did these things, but it was OK, because they are covered by absolute immunity as agents of the state. Basically they found that it was legal for these guys to frame an innocent man.
Holy crap, that was a terrifying read. Basically the appeals court found that the prosecutor and cop in the case were granted Absolute Immunity from prosecution for their actions in intentionally framing this guy for multiple felony and misdemeanor crimes. The appeals court found that the plaintiff did indeed get falsely accused, and that the prosecutor knowingly participated in presenting false testimony to get indictments - but the poor guy has no recourse.
In fact, check out Breyer's Wikipedia page for a lesson in what "constitutional" means.
On the bench, Breyer generally takes a pragmatic approach to constitutional issues, interested more in producing coherence and continuity in the law than in following doctrinal, historical or textual strictures
Not that this "flexibility" with respect to the letter of the law makes him a friend of liberty:
However, Breyer is also recognized to be deferential to the interests of law enforcement and to legislative judgments in the Supreme Court's First Amendment rulings.
Nice. So at least now you can be clear on the whole "reading the constitution" thing.
Check the article and the sidebar link to another jedi church article. This is a tongue in cheek protest against Islamic headdress requirements and exceptions made for their faith. Both articles mention Muslim women wearing their headdress in the same establishment - so this is their way of grinding that axe. Judging by their age, appearance and employment status, I would wager that there's a bit of anti-immigrant xenophobia involved in their attitudes, but the reporters mercifully didn't give them a soapbox for any unrelated preaching.
I don't know about the guy from TFA, but lawyers read lawyerese much faster than literature professors read novels. I work with dozens of lawyers, and I'm always amazed at their ability to scan through large, complex documents and pull out the relevant bits in very short order. In fact, I spent about 2 hours reading a large contract yesterday and didn't get much interesting from it. I passed it on to our law team for review and they had a dozen changes ready within 15 minutes. Legalese is structured language that allows well-trained priests in the temple to quickly gain information that is inscrutable to the unwashed masses.
80% of respondents: "Broadband is a right"
Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Counter example - Lake Worth Florida - all utilities are city owned. My sister-in-law lives there and has the worst service and prices in the region. I can't say I've been overly impressed with FPL (although they manage disasters that make your scary tornado look piddly), but my experience with Duke power was pretty good, and I was with a small CO-OP in Georgia that was fine. Maybe your anecdotal evidence is just that.... anecdotal.
Why did the NYT publish this? Probably because the President of the US just said that he was in favor of getting DNA from every person who is arrested. Confusing times we live in....
You miss the point of herd immunity. The reason the one person who was immunized caught the measles is because a single, non-immunized person brought the disease in from outside. They then spread it to another dozen people who were not immunized. In a group of 450 immunized people, one person had low immunity and caught the disease because they were given a relatively large exposure risk. That is what herd immunity is all about.
Let's say that the one person who went to Romania had been immunized ... then the one immunized person would never have caught the disease. Alternately, if the one person who went to Romania had been the one person in the 500 member herd with low immunity, only 1 person would have caught the disease. Either way, at least a dozen fewer people would have been infected, and if it was random chance as to which person had low immunity, full immunization would have reduced his risk of getting the disease by 500x. There's your herd effect.
No immunization is ever likely to be 100% effective, but if you can get everyone immunized, the disease has no transmission vector to live and find the few susceptible individuals.
Ok, I admit it. I rented Twilight. Not for my wife, either. I was just curious. You know.... an experimental phase.
You know what I learned? I'm getting old. 'Cause that movie sucked hard. Holy crap, was that one boring, boring, boring movie. I can't really convey how terrible it was. And the way that I know I'm now officially getting old is that I can't even see how a pre-teen could find it entertaining. It didn't even really do a good job of conveying teen angst, or alienation, or much of anything. Just a lot of sullen looks and staring contests.
Actually, the only way I can really describe it is as the bastard lovechild of MTV's "The Hills" fake reality show and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". Only instead of somewhat interesting characters and lots of action in a teen-angsty world, you get "The Hills" style crap dialog with lots of long pauses and staring into the distance. Even the action was boring.
I cannot for the life of me see how anyone old enough to have ever seen an actual movie before could have rated that thing anything other than a complete zero. It wasn't even good enough to be bad .. in fact it was kind of orthogonal to anything on the good/bad scale. It was just a big, lame, slow, turd that never went anywhere.
There. I got that off my chest. Ok. I feel better now that I admitted it.
I think you'll find that even a cursory reading of history will show that European countries have been doing a lot more than implementing coups and installing petty dictators for a long, long, long time. Like longer than the United States of America has been in existence. In fact, pretty much every country that is not in Europe has been occupied by European forces at some point. Those diamonds you are talking about are moving through a European monopoly cartel, all of those factions in African countries are in the aftermath of colonial Europe. In the "who did more badness" contest, the USA barely even bothered to show up.
I think they're pretty happy if you take a coin or bill out of circulation. Since it costs them less than the face value of the coin to mint it, you've just increased the value of the currency (micro-incrementally).