theres also atmospehric attenuation to account for. i dont know what the factor would be offhand, but it's another hit to the efficiency of the system.
embassies and diplomats are one of the primary targets of spying and espionage, because in representing their nation they MUST know a lot of things, because they cant do their job otherwise. and the UN building is one of the biggest collections of diplomats and state secrets in the world, all in one convenient place. so OF COURSE they're trying to find out what everyone knows there. your rainbows and roses worldview is about to be shattered. every country spies because it is in every countrys' best interests to do so. doing so carries little risk, and can provide huge dividends, making your position on negotiations far stronger. so grow up.
because its part of the diplomatic game. you can embarrass the other side (the court of public opinion, only this time the "public" is the worldwide community of nations) you can demand concessions in negotiations. if you actually caught and arrested the spy, you can arrange a prisoner exchange.
we're not talking about "spying on our own citizens for their security". we're talking about "spying on foreign nations to get the advantage in any dealings, diplomatic, or otherwise". there is a difference. a big one. this falls under the latter.
or do you think we should go into all negotiations or conflicts blind and ignorant of what we face?
Actually, no, its not. spying is how you get the edge in diplomatic game. the NSA spies. shocker huh, tht a spy agency would actually spy on foreign powers representatives at the UN? be surprised how careless people can be, even at embassies in a foreign country. many juicy nuggets of intel come from that carelessness. and your spy agencies try to find them cause that makes your diplomatic negotiations more successful. "Ambassador, you said you were only sending food aid to Bumfukistan, but we we both know that's a lie", etc.
actually this is the sort of thing I would expect a spy agency to do. this is about getting an edge in the foreign relations / diplomatic game. and im ok with this, its the same as spying on embassies (which everyone also does). this is still spying on "the other guys", which is what spies are supposed to do.
its the "spying on our own citizens for their own safety" that I have a problem with. this? business as usual, and acceptable at that.
the theaters themselves make money on the concessions. most of the box office goes to the studios (or rather, repays the money the theater spent on acquiring the movie...same end result). the theaters would GLADLY charge lower prices over time to get butts in seats, cause most of those butts LOVE their little treats during the movie.
but the stupidos (hah. now THERES a fruedian slip) i mean studios dont charge theaters for movies on a sliding scale. yet. there's first run theaters at X, and then the dollar/second run theaters (some good, some bad) that get the used film at a lower rate after its been played for a few months and left the main theaters (and with digital distribution, i've noticed theres fewer "dollar" theaters anymore, or they've upped their prices...since theres no nearly worn out film to eke a few more bucks out of anymore)
the word they need is "diversify". instead of 1 giant megabudget blockbuster scientifically designed to appeal to all 4 key demographics (and bland as SHIT), how about 6 or 7 medium budget films with various actors and scripts.
instead of one massive payout (or flop and then ensuing "woe is us, the undustry is dying"), lots of little payouts.
companies with pensions have to honor them. its the law. if a company should fail and not be able to pay its pensions there is a government agency that insures them and will replace the money stream such that hte pensioners still get most of their benefit.
now, they can sell (techinically its not selling though...) them to a management company, such that that other company now takes the risk. legally, the original company is still"honoring" it. but its now handled by this other company. and if THAT company fails....the law empowering the government agency doesnt kick in, and THEN pensioners can lose their pension. which is a problem with that law (that it doesnt cover "pension management companies").
but the statement as written is a bit simplistic and disengenouus
barring any other outside forces (regulation, etc) when two companies engage in actual competition in a market, ie trying to usurp the other, eventually one will defeat the other, either by running it out of business or consuming it. this is undeniable and can be seen throughout history and is simply taking logic to its conclusion. i cant believe anyone would actually argue with it.
all companies want a monopoly. microsoft isnt unique in this regard. monopoly/homogenization is one of the natural products/extremes of a competitive market.
Lots of companies do quite well sticking to what they can do and do well. Look at airlines: Southwest has no interest in growing relentlessly, and this has been a smart move for them for years. Long term viability vs short term gains.
you probably support the blanket unviersal domestic spying without suspicion and suspension of the 4th amendment in the name of security/safety from Terrorists too.
see, i'm with you guys. im too young to go yet. but ive also not yet done it for a living (like said, turned done that wind turbine job in the end)
the GP mention being a ham, my grandfather is too. he's got an ~80' tower. i once climbed it as a teen, but stupidly was just for thrills and to see from the top. he caught me at it, chewed me out, then taught me what he knew bout climbing (he was a lineman for Ma Bell for >30 years). and then put me to work that summer working on it. but i got a real good appreciation for the safety side and coming down the way I want to, not gravity's way.
I'd bet because the Magelen was specced in SI, and the Hubble wasn't. so the origianl source material that was snipped and molded into a submission has a conflict that the submitter deflated by adding the 21 to 8 comparison sentence.
Slashdot Mirror
you know, i had a really long post to reply, but i lost it. so i'll just say this: you're an idiot.
theres also atmospehric attenuation to account for. i dont know what the factor would be offhand, but it's another hit to the efficiency of the system.
oh grow up.
embassies and diplomats are one of the primary targets of spying and espionage, because in representing their nation they MUST know a lot of things, because they cant do their job otherwise. and the UN building is one of the biggest collections of diplomats and state secrets in the world, all in one convenient place. so OF COURSE they're trying to find out what everyone knows there. your rainbows and roses worldview is about to be shattered. every country spies because it is in every countrys' best interests to do so. doing so carries little risk, and can provide huge dividends, making your position on negotiations far stronger. so grow up.
because its part of the diplomatic game.
you can embarrass the other side (the court of public opinion, only this time the "public" is the worldwide community of nations)
you can demand concessions in negotiations.
if you actually caught and arrested the spy, you can arrange a prisoner exchange.
all sortts of potential plays.
we're not talking about "spying on our own citizens for their security".
we're talking about "spying on foreign nations to get the advantage in any dealings, diplomatic, or otherwise".
there is a difference. a big one. this falls under the latter.
or do you think we should go into all negotiations or conflicts blind and ignorant of what we face?
Actually, no, its not.
spying is how you get the edge in diplomatic game.
the NSA spies. shocker huh, tht a spy agency would actually spy on foreign powers representatives at the UN? be surprised how careless people can be, even at embassies in a foreign country. many juicy nuggets of intel come from that carelessness. and your spy agencies try to find them cause that makes your diplomatic negotiations more successful. "Ambassador, you said you were only sending food aid to Bumfukistan, but we we both know that's a lie", etc.
actually this is the sort of thing I would expect a spy agency to do.
this is about getting an edge in the foreign relations / diplomatic game.
and im ok with this, its the same as spying on embassies (which everyone also does).
this is still spying on "the other guys", which is what spies are supposed to do.
its the "spying on our own citizens for their own safety" that I have a problem with.
this? business as usual, and acceptable at that.
page traffic. same as the same theory posted ~6 months ago about google predicting flops/successes.
the theaters themselves make money on the concessions. most of the box office goes to the studios (or rather, repays the money the theater spent on acquiring the movie...same end result). the theaters would GLADLY charge lower prices over time to get butts in seats, cause most of those butts LOVE their little treats during the movie.
but the stupidos (hah. now THERES a fruedian slip) i mean studios dont charge theaters for movies on a sliding scale. yet. there's first run theaters at X, and then the dollar/second run theaters (some good, some bad) that get the used film at a lower rate after its been played for a few months and left the main theaters (and with digital distribution, i've noticed theres fewer "dollar" theaters anymore, or they've upped their prices...since theres no nearly worn out film to eke a few more bucks out of anymore)
STOP MAKING SENSE! ....
what, you think its easy to change prices constantly? its not like we have computers we can program to do it for
the word they need is "diversify". instead of 1 giant megabudget blockbuster scientifically designed to appeal to all 4 key demographics (and bland as SHIT), how about 6 or 7 medium budget films with various actors and scripts.
instead of one massive payout (or flop and then ensuing "woe is us, the undustry is dying"), lots of little payouts.
companies with pensions have to honor them. its the law. if a company should fail and not be able to pay its pensions there is a government agency that insures them and will replace the money stream such that hte pensioners still get most of their benefit.
now, they can sell (techinically its not selling though...) them to a management company, such that that other company now takes the risk. legally, the original company is still"honoring" it. but its now handled by this other company. and if THAT company fails....the law empowering the government agency doesnt kick in, and THEN pensioners can lose their pension. which is a problem with that law (that it doesnt cover "pension management companies").
but the statement as written is a bit simplistic and disengenouus
barring any other outside forces (regulation, etc) when two companies engage in actual competition in a market, ie trying to usurp the other, eventually one will defeat the other, either by running it out of business or consuming it. this is undeniable and can be seen throughout history and is simply taking logic to its conclusion. i cant believe anyone would actually argue with it.
all companies want a monopoly. microsoft isnt unique in this regard. monopoly/homogenization is one of the natural products/extremes of a competitive market.
Lots of companies do quite well sticking to what they can do and do well. Look at airlines: Southwest has no interest in growing relentlessly, and this has been a smart move for them for years. Long term viability vs short term gains.
you probably support the blanket unviersal domestic spying without suspicion and suspension of the 4th amendment in the name of security/safety from Terrorists too.
F that, you, and the BS notion you rode in on.
+1 Total Recall reference
-1 for the automatic transmission sports cars
measuring one self against the average is a quick easy simple and pretty reliable metric.
translation: "i dont care that you do it successfully. it cant be done successfully. your experience is wrong and i am right".
see, i'm with you guys. im too young to go yet. but ive also not yet done it for a living (like said, turned done that wind turbine job in the end)
the GP mention being a ham, my grandfather is too. he's got an ~80' tower. i once climbed it as a teen, but stupidly was just for thrills and to see from the top. he caught me at it, chewed me out, then taught me what he knew bout climbing (he was a lineman for Ma Bell for >30 years). and then put me to work that summer working on it. but i got a real good appreciation for the safety side and coming down the way I want to, not gravity's way.
still cant possibly see how the "shortest/least resistive" path could possibly be through the heart when both contacts are on the tongue.
how do you die by putting a 9v on your tongue?
pretty sure the "price" he's referring to isn't monetary.
I'd bet because the Magelen was specced in SI, and the Hubble wasn't. so the origianl source material that was snipped and molded into a submission has a conflict that the submitter deflated by adding the 21 to 8 comparison sentence.