No...$1800 divided by 30 (assuming 30 days per month) is $60 per day. $60 per day is $2.23 per person per day.
Alternatively, $1800 (per month) divided by 27 people is $66.67 per person, per month. That assumes it was the same 27 people every day. If it was a different 27 people every day, then that's 810 people's needs served, at a cost of $2.23 per person per month.
Since it was probably mostly the same few people, say, 85% the same people every day... that's 23 people, plus another 4 unique people per day on average, or 143 unique people. That would give us $12.59 per person per month. It's not really too bad of a rate. Far better than most ISPs certainly.
Could that be due to the CDs that they sourced them from? Some of my CDs have the track boundaries wrong, so if I'm listening on random I'll get a bit of the end of the previous song, or the beginning of the next at the end.
Well, an arm was ripped off and someone was shot in cold blood in the first part of Episode IV, so the violence is nothing new really.
I do agree that filmmakers could do a better job with leaving things up to the imagination, both graphically and in terms of plot. There are so many movies I've seen where I feel like I'me being beat upside the head with a 2"x4": "This crack is why crack that character crack is doing what they're crack doing"
What about the effort/money spent to create the original car? Seems to me that that could be said to be lost (and that's the root of the problem of IP, isn't it?)
Why is it that specialty keyboards are so retardedly expensive? I mean, cheap qwerty keyboards are $5-$10. Good qwerty keyboards usually run about $50-$75 or so.
I realize there's some economy of scale there, but 35x seems a bit unreasonable to me.
"...such arguments have in the majority of cases proven to be false. Without locating the anatomical difference, and without doing a proper study which is actually capable of controlling for social upbringing, it *is* reckless to suggest it that there is some anatomical difference in math skills which correlates to anatomical sex."
I don't think those arguments have proven false, so much as they have proven irrelevant. If the objective is to find the best math skills possible, does the reason (anatomical/social) behind those skills matter? I'd say not.
But it is useful to find out a reason for the statistics you have. There's a big difference between "This is the cause" and "This is one thing that could be the cause".
"It is a LEAP to point to the lack of a penis. It is completely arbitrary."
erm, no it's not. It's pretty well known that with a few exceptions genes -> hormones -> genitals. It's not such a huge leap to suggest that genes -> hormones -> brain layout/chemistry as well.
"Socialization is a form of mental exercise and so is math. It is reasonable to suspect therein lies the connection. The genitals are less likely to be the culprit."
...Um, no one said that the genitals were the cause. They (genitals and math skills) could both be effects of the same root cause (genetics). I don't think there's enough evidence of that to state "this is the cause".. but there's not really enough evidence against it to state "this is not the cause" either, as you seem to want to do. My personal guess is that it's probably a bit of both, with socialization playing a much more significant role than genetics.
"If there was a medical procedure which facilitated the possibility of gestation, men should have access to it just as much as women who through some medical condition do not have the ability to gestate."
Sure. But this is not about access to a medical procedure that facilitates maths skills. It's about finding a cause of a statistical difference in maths skills (or rather, success in the field of maths). Just as it's not unreasonable to suggest that the explanation for me not being able to gestate a fetus is that I don't have a womb, it's not unreasonable to suggest that the explanation for fewer women excelling in the field of mathematics could be that there's some anatomical difference.
"The differences between men and women in the field of gestation are anatomical. Differences in math ability (as studied for sex) are purely behavioural."
But behaviour is controlled by the anatomy of the brain. Therefore behaviour is anatomical as well.
"If a difference in math ability based on behavior (independant of anatomical sex) has not been controlled for, then it is impossible to conclude any behavioral difference is based on anatomical sex."
Yes, but it's not impossible or unreasonable to suggest it.
My issue with the phrase "wholesale" is that it implies that he was saying that women are inferior to men in every way, when clearly he was not. I'd have no problem with the phrase "men are wholesale inferior to women in the field of gestation" I would have a problem with "Women are in general inferior to men", but no problem with "Women are inferior to men in the field of mathematics" (assuming there's some evidence of that).
"This also means the right not to be denied [opportunities] and rights based on any real or imagined differences in whatever race or sex of people they come from."
Ah yes...why should I be denied the opportunity to gestate, simply because, being a man, I haven't got a womb!?
"I think there is a pretty good reason to be very [skeptical] and cynical of any study which suggests 1 class of people is wholesale inferior to another."
Sure. There's reason to be skeptical of any study at all, in fact any statement at all. But this guy wasn't saying that a class of people is wholesale inferior to another. He was saying that it is possible that they are, in one specific area, in general (i.e. not every member of the class "women" will be worse at math and/or science than every member of the class "men"). Just as above, I think it's not unfair to say that women are in general much better at gestating a fetus than men.
The strategy is to avoid flying as much as possible, since your plane doesn't use fuel while stopped.. Kill the first 3, stop on a rooftop and wait for the others to get close (1 block away should do it) Land the plane while attacking (you're pretty much screwed if you have to do more than one pass)
Point one describes the problem I see with insurance companies. Insurance should not be run as a company trying to make money, but as a company trying to protect the interests of the people it represents...a shared risk system, as "insurance" initially was. Once it becomes primarily-for-profit, the company is only out to screw everyone it can.
Sure...this segment is called "stupid people", and wouldn't be a major loss to society anyway...in the context of the viruses the problem is that the actions of this segment screw everyone else, not just them.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, there's still an R rating. They didn't get rid of it.
No...$1800 divided by 30 (assuming 30 days per month) is $60 per day. $60 per day is $2.23 per person per day.
... that's 23 people, plus another 4 unique people per day on average, or 143 unique people. That would give us $12.59 per person per month. It's not really too bad of a rate. Far better than most ISPs certainly.
Alternatively, $1800 (per month) divided by 27 people is $66.67 per person, per month. That assumes it was the same 27 people every day. If it was a different 27 people every day, then that's 810 people's needs served, at a cost of $2.23 per person per month.
Since it was probably mostly the same few people, say, 85% the same people every day
I dunno...aside from the feed roller problem, which has since been fixed with a newer type of rubber, my 6L has done fine by me.
Well, since that works for OEMs selling windows, why not for Linux as well?
In prosthetics, if not space ship design.
Well, wouldn't it be the other way around? He went from the droid of doom to a deadweight. Perhaps he just got old.
Could that be due to the CDs that they sourced them from? Some of my CDs have the track boundaries wrong, so if I'm listening on random I'll get a bit of the end of the previous song, or the beginning of the next at the end.
I do agree that filmmakers could do a better job with leaving things up to the imagination, both graphically and in terms of plot. There are so many movies I've seen where I feel like I'me being beat upside the head with a 2"x4": "This crack is why crack that character crack is doing what they're crack doing"
How convenient that he doesn't. Even movies with up to an R rating can be seen in theaters when accompanied by an adult.
Yay SBC!! I feel for you (Stevens Point, where it's not quite that bad)
They didn't punish the whole US. They punished the occupants of the WTC towers.
I dunno, but "transparent" would seem to indicate that the barriers are there but we can't see them. Assuming total transparency.
What about the effort/money spent to create the original car? Seems to me that that could be said to be lost (and that's the root of the problem of IP, isn't it?)
Only if it's been specified in the config file.
Why is it that specialty keyboards are so retardedly expensive? I mean, cheap qwerty keyboards are $5-$10. Good qwerty keyboards usually run about $50-$75 or so.
I realize there's some economy of scale there, but 35x seems a bit unreasonable to me.
So far, anyway...we've got a long way to go.
"...such arguments have in the majority of cases proven to be false. Without locating the anatomical difference, and without doing a proper study which is actually capable of controlling for social upbringing, it *is* reckless to suggest it that there is some anatomical difference in math skills which correlates to anatomical sex."
I don't think those arguments have proven false, so much as they have proven irrelevant. If the objective is to find the best math skills possible, does the reason (anatomical/social) behind those skills matter? I'd say not.
But it is useful to find out a reason for the statistics you have. There's a big difference between "This is the cause" and "This is one thing that could be the cause".
"It is a LEAP to point to the lack of a penis. It is completely arbitrary."
erm, no it's not. It's pretty well known that with a few exceptions genes -> hormones -> genitals. It's not such a huge leap to suggest that genes -> hormones -> brain layout/chemistry as well.
"Socialization is a form of mental exercise and so is math. It is reasonable to suspect therein lies the connection. The genitals are less likely to be the culprit."
...Um, no one said that the genitals were the cause. They (genitals and math skills) could both be effects of the same root cause (genetics). I don't think there's enough evidence of that to state "this is the cause" .. but there's not really enough evidence against it to state "this is not the cause" either, as you seem to want to do. My personal guess is that it's probably a bit of both, with socialization playing a much more significant role than genetics.
"If there was a medical procedure which facilitated the possibility of gestation, men should have access to it just as much as women who through some medical condition do not have the ability to gestate."
Sure. But this is not about access to a medical procedure that facilitates maths skills. It's about finding a cause of a statistical difference in maths skills (or rather, success in the field of maths). Just as it's not unreasonable to suggest that the explanation for me not being able to gestate a fetus is that I don't have a womb, it's not unreasonable to suggest that the explanation for fewer women excelling in the field of mathematics could be that there's some anatomical difference.
"The differences between men and women in the field of gestation are anatomical. Differences in math ability (as studied for sex) are purely behavioural."
But behaviour is controlled by the anatomy of the brain. Therefore behaviour is anatomical as well.
"If a difference in math ability based on behavior (independant of anatomical sex) has not been controlled for, then it is impossible to conclude any behavioral difference is based on anatomical sex."
Yes, but it's not impossible or unreasonable to suggest it.
My issue with the phrase "wholesale" is that it implies that he was saying that women are inferior to men in every way, when clearly he was not. I'd have no problem with the phrase "men are wholesale inferior to women in the field of gestation" I would have a problem with "Women are in general inferior to men", but no problem with "Women are inferior to men in the field of mathematics" (assuming there's some evidence of that).
Huh? How does putting the baby in the oven make any more difference for a woman vs. a man?
<joke taste="poor">Assuming the gas is on, it probably won't live long enough to make much difference in either of their professional lives...</joke>
"This also means the right not to be denied [opportunities] and rights based on any real or imagined differences in whatever race or sex of people they come from."
Ah yes...why should I be denied the opportunity to gestate, simply because, being a man, I haven't got a womb!?
"I think there is a pretty good reason to be very [skeptical] and cynical of any study which suggests 1 class of people is wholesale inferior to another."
Sure. There's reason to be skeptical of any study at all, in fact any statement at all. But this guy wasn't saying that a class of people is wholesale inferior to another. He was saying that it is possible that they are, in one specific area, in general (i.e. not every member of the class "women" will be worse at math and/or science than every member of the class "men"). Just as above, I think it's not unfair to say that women are in general much better at gestating a fetus than men.
The strategy is to avoid flying as much as possible, since your plane doesn't use fuel while stopped.. Kill the first 3, stop on a rooftop and wait for the others to get close (1 block away should do it) Land the plane while attacking (you're pretty much screwed if you have to do more than one pass)
Hmm, I suppose.
I interpreted it to mean "not for sure", with the article text thus saying "this site here is saying this, but it's not really confirmed."
Note the question mark...
Point one describes the problem I see with insurance companies. Insurance should not be run as a company trying to make money, but as a company trying to protect the interests of the people it represents...a shared risk system, as "insurance" initially was. Once it becomes primarily-for-profit, the company is only out to screw everyone it can.
This doesn't disagree with your point, of course.
Sure...this segment is called "stupid people", and wouldn't be a major loss to society anyway...in the context of the viruses the problem is that the actions of this segment screw everyone else, not just them.