I see what you're trying to do, but do we really want the incumbent deciding whether or not your review of his election is a legitimate use?
We already have tens of thousands of laws, including a great many concerning elections. I suspect a decent lawyer could argue that these letters violate a few laws.
Certainly not. It demonstrates conclusively that spending more doesn't work. We've been spending more, and getting worse results.
Teachers are like any other profession - there are good teachers and bad teachers. There are teachers who work 48 weeks per year, there are teachers that work 34 weeks per year. There are teachers who make $85,000 and there are teachers who make $30,000. Like most professions, there's a correspondence between working and making good money and a correspondence between taking several months of vacation every year and making less money.
Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House, and generally considered the second most powerful democrat behind Obama. You can't figure out why conservatives might have a problem with top democrats? You may have noticed Obama wasn't very involved with the drafting of the ACA, that was spearheaded by Pelosi. It would be more accurate to call it Pelosicare rather than Obamacare. The first draft, the last time the Democrats controlled the White House, was called Hillarycare.
For those conservatives of a more libertarian bent, they may be unimpressed with Bush and Cheney and may see some good in some democrats. Pelosi, however, supported the Patriot Act, currently supports the NSA dragnet, No Child Left Behind - she's the figurehead for the Democrats, except when the republicans have an even worse idea, in which case she gets on board with them.
Do you suspect that Americans, as a whole, are not actually ignorant? Remembering that the majority of Americans didn't recognize the name of the vice president.. .
Nah, I wasn't alive in the 1930s. I have seen Man, Controller of the Universe, though.:) I wonder if my stepdaughters, who ended up being raised by their Mexican grandparents, would be familiar with any people you mentioned. Not from school, I'd bet.
The default is "or any later version". Quoting myself:
> I allowed for "any later version" to allow for _revisions_, adjustments, to the wording. I didn't do that to allow Stallman and friends...
I can't unrelease 15 years of work - that was all released under the GPL license, including provisions in case the wording of rhe license needed to be clarified to account for different legal terms in different jurisdictions or something. That actually happened- some of the legal terminology doesn't mean the same thing in the UK as it does in the US, so it was good that the wording could be clarified. That's why I didn't strike the "or any later version" clause. That meant trusting the FSF to make those clarifications without significantly changing the meaning and purpose of the license. They violated that trust.
I wouldn't have been bothered if they'd introduced the PBL, Patent Bomb License, and I might have used it for some work. For them to convert the GPL into such a thing was underhanded and dishonorable. I now prefer to avoid the FSF because I can't trust them.
You'll notice that the US spends more than practically any country, and gets among the worst results. If you look at our own spending over time vs results, again you'll see that as budgets have increased, results have gotten worse. Spending more to do more of the wrong thing doesn't help.
I'm not sure that cutting funding would be politically popular, though. We spend a lot more than the countries that do well. I don't know if those other countries spend their school time on Mexican culture week, black history month, and global diversity week. They may spend their time learning reading, writing, and arithmetic.
I noticed one difference between US public schools vs schools that work. When my step-daughters were in elementary school, there were three weeks out of five that were "special". The first week was Mexican culture week and they spent their time singing Mexican songs, making Mexican food, and learning Mexican dances. That was enriching, perhaps. A couple of weeks later was black history, and then "world diversity " or something. That's all fine and well, I understand the value of such things. I strongly suspect, though that Japanese students spent those weeks learning reading , writing and arithmetic. My stepdaughter can make enchiladas, but can't read so well. A good trade?
I wish that were so. My dad was very successful. I chose to not do what he did (work his ass off at school and work). Unsurprisingly, I was not successful. Later, I chose to do what he did - I had a full time job, a part time job, and was in school "full time". Lo and behold, I became successful.
> (holding a baby in one arm) is pissed off at having to unlock her phone, find the app, scan a QR code and have the cashier scan a QR code...
It does seem rather inconvenient, so I don't see my wife using it.
> Oh, and she's living off credit card debt so she doesn't actually have any money in her checking account to use CurrentC anyway.
Oh, there's money in the account. My wife (and our daughter) aren't doing any debt. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that living on credit card debt is how you end up broke, in which case the baby formula is paid for with the EBT card.:)
> All those GPL "OR ANY LATER VERSION" are at the whim of the FSF being a benevolent organization in the future.
There are quite a lot of people, myself included, who released software while GPLv2 was current and feel that FSF went a little bit evil with v3. Even to the extent that I agree with Stallman regarding bad patents, I don't think it's right to retroactively pull that into a copyright license. To me, that's precisely the same as if he'd added "you lose your license if you vote Democrat". Democrats may or may not be a bad thing, but Stallman doesn't have a moral right to impose his views regarding political affiliation upon my software.
I chose the license because I agreed with what it was - the position it took regarding copyright and secrecy. I allowed for "any later version" to allow for _revisions_, adjustments, to the wording. I didn't do that to allow Stallman and friends to attach their unrelated personal preferences to my work.
Suppose today Walmart and Target both advertise baby formula for $9.99, based on making a 10% profit over their total cost of $9. If the new system saves Target 4% in fees, that means they're able to advertise $9.59 - and even specifically say "save $.40 vs Walmart. You bet that idea gives Target executives an erection.
Of course when they do, Walmart matches the price reduction. That's part A of the two-part recipe that made Walmart the largest retailer - a) lowest prices b) even in smaller towns.
Because of the inflation tax, such price reductions tend to be short term, of course, so what happens most often in practice is that cost reductions delay price increases. This system would reduce costs by 3%-5% if it were successful, and around the same time a minimum wage increase or Obamacare or higher gas prices will increase the store's costs. The two changes offset and the store doesn't have to raise prices to cover the increased cost due to whatever.
I guess that Honda model was a little late to the party. Most cars built after 1995 have transponder keys, where the ECU sends a challenge string to the chip in the key.
Suppose there are about a million people in a city. You could try to count each of those million people one by one and you'd miss a few, perhaps 5%. Alternatively, you could poll 200 people in each of 20 neighborhoods within the city, a total of 4,000 people, to find out that 61% of the people have active cell phones. In other words, for every 61 cell phones, there are 100 people. Then ask the carriers how many cell phones there are and multiply. You'll still be off by 5%, and you've had to talk to 4,000 people instead of a million people.
So in other words, you're pointing out that you could just not solve it, not come up with the optimum move each time based on expected value. Instead, you could settle for a "good enough" move and sometimes you'd get lucky. This is true.
you stated:
stochastic: best: np-hard, not perfect, quality unknown other: polynomial, good average
You called the first algorithm "best", acknowledging that the best (best long- term average) is NP-hard. The other can't be better than the best (by definition) , so the problem of finding the best moves remains NP-hard. Sure you could have a simpler algorithm that comes up with reasonable moves, but it'll always be beaten by the NP-hard in the long term.
Opening a car door is easy enough. That way the thief can steal your CDs. Hot wiring a modern car to steal the entire automobile is quite a bit more difficult. I've opened a lot of car doors. I've never started the ignition without a key on anything newer than 1980s, when you could just pull the lock cylinder with a sufficiently strong tool, then turn the switch with a screwdriver.
Yes, he made a billion dollars and paid taxes on that. He then spent that money buying something, theoretically in the hopes of making a profit. If he makes a profit, ie ends up with more money, he'll pay taxes on the increase. If, over the next 15 years, the billion he already paid taxes on comes back to him, why should he pay taxes on it again? If you buy a car for $10,000 and later sell it for $5,000, do you again pay taxes on the $5,000 you got back? Of course not. You already paid taxes on that money whwn you earned it. You'd only owe more tax if you sold it for more than you bought it for - if you made money on the deal.
"We" are subsidizing that only if you and I own sports teams. It's the teams that pay for it.
Taxes are paid when you make money. If you buy a widget for $5 and sell the $10, you've made $5, which you'll pay taxes on. The teams make money and pay taxes. The NFL is setup where the NFL itself is not allowed to make money. Because it doesn't make money, it doesn't owe any income tax. The teams make money and therefore must pay income tax.
> This is not $70 millions in non-taxable charities, but an investment on a money machine in the sports/entertainment industry.
Yes, he bought a business, so he'll pay income tax on any income that is generated. If he buys T-shirts for $10 each and sells them for $25 each, that's a $15 profit he'll be taxed on.
If he buys hot dogs for $2 and sells them for $8, that's a $6 profit on which he'll pay taxes.
If he buys a team for a billion dollars and over 15 years he gets his billion back plus $500 million more, that's a $500 million profit he'll pay taxes on.
The billion he apent buying the team is money he ALREADY earned from Microsoft, so he ALREADY paid taxes on it. Of course he doesn't have to pay income taxes on the same money again when spends it on a team. It's INCOME tax, not SPENDING tax. The article is just clickbait for the uninformed and gullible, silently assuming he should have to pay income tax over and over on the same money. How many times he should be taxed on that money the author doesn't say.
Certainly you couldn't implement checks and cross checks for every detail of the law as part of the web site within any reasonable time frame. However, one could easily build a site that just sends enrollee information to the insurance company and to HHS, and accomplish that within days or weeks. With a couple of years and a billion dollars, one could build a site that does 90% of what was desired, and actually works. It is the job of the chief project manager to not allow the scope to expand beyond what can be done - and tell Congress in the open hearing that it can't be done if they insist on feature X.
Millions? Maybe you meant thousands? Maybe on second thought, hundreds or at least dozens? Well, American Idol anyway. Hmm maybe American Idol was by SMS, not internet.
There is the IBM proxy, so that's one. I bet we could find two or three more. It might be safe to say "a few".
Slashdot Mirror
I see what you're trying to do, but do we really want the incumbent deciding whether or not your review of his election is a legitimate use?
We already have tens of thousands of laws, including a great many concerning elections. I suspect a decent lawyer could argue that these letters violate a few laws.
Certainly not. It demonstrates conclusively that spending more doesn't work. We've been spending more, and getting worse results.
Teachers are like any other profession - there are good teachers and bad teachers. There are teachers who work 48 weeks per year, there are teachers that work 34 weeks per year. There are teachers who make $85,000 and there are teachers who make $30,000. Like most professions, there's a correspondence between working and making good money and a correspondence between taking several months of vacation every year and making less money.
Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House, and generally considered the second most powerful democrat behind Obama. You can't figure out why conservatives might have a problem with top democrats? You may have noticed Obama wasn't very involved with the drafting of the ACA, that was spearheaded by Pelosi. It would be more accurate to call it Pelosicare rather than Obamacare. The first draft, the last time the Democrats controlled the White House, was called Hillarycare.
For those conservatives of a more libertarian bent, they may be unimpressed with Bush and Cheney and may see some good in some democrats. Pelosi, however, supported the Patriot Act, currently supports the NSA dragnet, No Child Left Behind - she's the figurehead for the Democrats, except when the republicans have an even worse idea, in which case she gets on board with them.
Do you suspect that Americans, as a whole, are not actually ignorant? Remembering that the majority of Americans didn't recognize the name of the vice president.. .
> ever see Diego Rivera's Man at the Crossroads?
Nah, I wasn't alive in the 1930s. I have seen Man, Controller of the Universe, though. :)
I wonder if my stepdaughters, who ended up being raised by their Mexican grandparents, would be familiar with any people you mentioned. Not from school, I'd bet.
The default is "or any later version". Quoting myself:
> I allowed for "any later version" to allow for _revisions_, adjustments, to the wording. I didn't do that to allow Stallman and friends. ..
I can't unrelease 15 years of work - that was all released under the GPL license, including provisions in case the wording of rhe license needed to be clarified to account for different legal terms in different jurisdictions or something. That actually happened- some of the legal terminology doesn't mean the same thing in the UK as it does in the US, so it was good that the wording could be clarified. That's why I didn't strike the "or any later version" clause. That meant trusting the FSF to make those clarifications without significantly changing the meaning and purpose of the license. They violated that trust.
I wouldn't have been bothered if they'd introduced the PBL, Patent Bomb License, and I might have used it for some work. For them to convert the GPL into such a thing was underhanded and dishonorable. I now prefer to avoid the FSF because I can't trust them.
Somebody lied to you.
http://data.worldbank.org/indi...
You'll notice that the US spends more than practically any country, and gets among the worst results. If you look at our own spending over time vs results, again you'll see that as budgets have increased, results have gotten worse. Spending more to do more of the wrong thing doesn't help.
Funding them at the same level as countries that get good results might work.
http://data.worldbank.org/indi...
I'm not sure that cutting funding would be politically popular, though. We spend a lot more than the countries that do well. I don't know if those other countries spend their school time on Mexican culture week, black history month, and global diversity week. They may spend their time learning reading, writing, and arithmetic.
We could fund them similarly to the way they are funded in countries that get good results. Details here:
http://data.worldbank.org/indi...
Cutting our spending down to those levels might work. All of the countries that get better results than us do spend less.
http://data.worldbank.org/indi...
I noticed one difference between US public schools vs schools that work. When my step-daughters were in elementary school, there were three weeks out of five that were "special". The first week was Mexican culture week and they spent their time singing Mexican songs, making Mexican food, and learning Mexican dances. That was enriching, perhaps. A couple of weeks later was black history, and then "world diversity " or something. That's all fine and well, I understand the value of such things. I strongly suspect, though that Japanese students spent those weeks learning reading , writing and arithmetic. My stepdaughter can make enchiladas, but can't read so well. A good trade?
I wish that were so. My dad was very successful. I chose to not do what he did (work his ass off at school and work).
Unsurprisingly, I was not successful. Later, I chose to do what he did - I had a full time job, a part time job, and was in school "full time". Lo and behold, I became successful.
> (holding a baby in one arm) is pissed off at having to unlock her phone, find the app, scan a QR code and have the cashier scan a QR code ...
It does seem rather inconvenient, so I don't see my wife using it.
> Oh, and she's living off credit card debt so she doesn't actually have any money in her checking account to use CurrentC anyway.
Oh, there's money in the account. My wife (and our daughter) aren't doing any debt. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that living on credit card debt is how you end up broke, in which case the baby formula is paid for with the EBT card. :)
Indeed, when Target saves the Visa fee, they do in fact pass those savings along to the customer.
> All those GPL "OR ANY LATER VERSION" are at the whim of the FSF being a benevolent organization in the future.
There are quite a lot of people, myself included, who released software while GPLv2 was current and feel that FSF went a little bit evil with v3. Even to the extent that I agree with Stallman regarding bad patents, I don't think it's right to retroactively pull that into a copyright license. To me, that's precisely the same as if he'd added "you lose your license if you vote Democrat". Democrats may or may not be a bad thing, but Stallman doesn't have a moral right to impose his views regarding political affiliation upon my software.
I chose the license because I agreed with what it was - the position it took regarding copyright and secrecy. I allowed for "any later version" to allow for _revisions_, adjustments, to the wording. I didn't do that to allow Stallman and friends to attach their unrelated personal preferences to my work.
Suppose today Walmart and Target both advertise baby formula for $9.99, based on making a 10% profit over their total cost of $9. If the new system saves Target 4% in fees, that means they're able to advertise $9.59 - and even specifically say "save $.40 vs Walmart. You bet that idea gives Target executives an erection.
Of course when they do, Walmart matches the price reduction. That's part A of the two-part recipe that made Walmart the largest retailer - a) lowest prices b) even in smaller towns.
Because of the inflation tax, such price reductions tend to be short term, of course, so what happens most often in practice is that cost reductions delay price increases. This system would reduce costs by 3%-5% if it were successful, and around the same time a minimum wage increase or Obamacare or higher gas prices will increase the store's costs. The two changes offset and the store doesn't have to raise prices to cover the increased cost due to whatever.
I guess that Honda model was a little late to the party. Most cars built after 1995 have transponder keys, where the ECU sends a challenge string to the chip in the key.
Suppose there are about a million people in a city. You could try to count each of those million people one by one and you'd miss a few, perhaps 5%.
Alternatively, you could poll 200 people in each of 20 neighborhoods within the city, a total of 4,000 people, to find out that 61% of the people have active cell phones. In other words, for every 61 cell phones, there are 100 people. Then ask the carriers how many cell phones there are and multiply. You'll still be off by 5%, and you've had to talk to 4,000 people instead of a million people.
So in other words, you're pointing out that you could just not solve it, not come up with the optimum move each time based on expected value. Instead, you could settle for a "good enough" move and sometimes you'd get lucky. This is true.
you stated:
stochastic:
best: np-hard, not perfect, quality unknown
other: polynomial, good average
You called the first algorithm "best", acknowledging that the best (best long- term average) is NP-hard. The other can't be better than the best (by definition) , so the problem of finding the best moves remains NP-hard. Sure you could have a simpler algorithm that comes up with reasonable moves, but it'll always be beaten by the NP-hard in the long term.
Opening a car door is easy enough. That way the thief can steal your CDs. Hot wiring a modern car to steal the entire automobile is quite a bit more difficult. I've opened a lot of car doors. I've never started the ignition without a key on anything newer than 1980s, when you could just pull the lock cylinder with a sufficiently strong tool, then turn the switch with a screwdriver.
Yes, he made a billion dollars and paid taxes on that.
He then spent that money buying something, theoretically in the hopes of making a profit. If he makes a profit, ie ends up with more money, he'll pay taxes on the increase. If, over the next 15 years, the billion he already paid taxes on comes back to him, why should he pay taxes on it again? If you buy a car for $10,000 and later sell it for $5,000, do you again pay taxes on the $5,000 you got back? Of course not. You already paid taxes on that money whwn you earned it. You'd only owe more tax if you sold it for more than you bought it for - if you made money on the deal.
"We" are subsidizing that only if you and I own sports teams. It's the teams that pay for it.
Taxes are paid when you make money. If you buy a widget for $5 and sell the $10, you've made $5, which you'll pay taxes on. The teams make money and pay taxes. The NFL is setup where the NFL itself is not allowed to make money. Because it doesn't make money, it doesn't owe any income tax. The teams make money and therefore must pay income tax.
> This is not $70 millions in non-taxable charities, but an investment on a money machine in the sports/entertainment industry.
Yes, he bought a business, so he'll pay income tax on any income that is generated. If he buys T-shirts for $10 each and sells them for $25 each, that's a $15 profit he'll be taxed on.
If he buys hot dogs for $2 and sells them for $8, that's a $6 profit on which he'll pay taxes.
If he buys a team for a billion dollars and over 15 years he gets his billion back plus $500 million more, that's a $500 million profit he'll pay taxes on.
The billion he apent buying the team is money he ALREADY earned from Microsoft, so he ALREADY paid taxes on it. Of course he doesn't have to pay income taxes on the same money again when spends it on a team. It's INCOME tax, not SPENDING tax. The article is just clickbait for the uninformed and gullible, silently assuming he should have to pay income tax over and over on the same money. How many times he should be taxed on that money the author doesn't say.
Certainly you couldn't implement checks and cross checks for every detail of the law as part of the web site within any reasonable time frame. However, one could easily build a site that just sends enrollee information to the insurance company and to HHS, and accomplish that within days or weeks. With a couple of years and a billion dollars, one could build a site that does 90% of what was desired, and actually works. It is the job of the chief project manager to not allow the scope to expand beyond what can be done - and tell Congress in the open hearing that it can't be done if they insist on feature X.
Millions? Maybe you meant thousands? Maybe on second thought, hundreds or at least dozens? Well, American Idol anyway. Hmm maybe American Idol was by SMS, not internet.
There is the IBM proxy, so that's one. I bet we could find two or three more. It might be safe to say "a few".
True