"Market forces" don't inherently ignore the tragedy of the commons if the property rights of individuals get respected, and the reason they don't is because of corporatism, which is decidedly not "the market". In a true market-based society, you would be able to sue the polluter and win, as pollution always infringes on someone's property rights.
"Idiotic" would be thinking that playing with semantics actually shows us that incandescents aren't actually, yes, effectively banned. An "efficiency standard" is a great euphemism though for a ban.
If you're letting society dictate what is "in" and "out" for you as a man, even if it's literally "faux masculinity", then I think you've already missed the whole point of masculinity and "being a man". March to your own drumbeat.
The only situation I've found a watch useful for is when I'm on my motorbike, as it doesn't have a clock on the dash, and I can't reach for my cellphone.
Other than that, a watch for most men today is a fashion accessory. For 99% of requirements, the cellphone clock display has replaced the need for a wristwatch.
This also explains why the slashdot summary reads exactly like the kind of advertisement you would see in e.g. a men's magazine pushing products like cosmetics for men and other crap we don't need.
That's absurd on the face of it, you don't need FTTH for the SKA, because the data isn't going to be distributed on a large scale to homes! For the SKA, you only need one fat pipe leading from the SKA, out to the under-ocean cables.
Yeah, seriously, if there's one thing I've learned it's that even rival lawyers will protect one another when it comes to defending and expanding the power the 'system' gives lawyers to screw over everyone else.
Great, a whole 70MW from all of Bonneville's stations in total, now if only there were about 1000 times as many dams all over the place, including in dry areas. You have clearly shown us the answer.
Armstrong, Lovell, and Cernan are -- knowingly or unknowingly -- lobbying for an old, failed model of government contracting, not for the continuation of the American space program.
They aren't even implying it, they are stating it.
There are other reasons to expect they "probably" wouldn't actually do anything like that, as it would harm their reputation --- but it wouldn't be because this ToS doesn't explicitly allow them to --- it does, and legally it would be only incidental that they don't exercise that right. Certainly it may raise the company's paper value if looking for valuations for funding.
Yes, but the "Service" isn't defined by the previous sentence at all in any way whatsoever, is vague and open-ended and refers to pretty much anything. It still says exactly what it say, out of context. So what's your point?
Um, it still sounds just as bad to me even in context. Legally, the sentence "We sometimes need your permission to do what you ask us to do with your stuff (for example, hosting, making public, or sharing your files)." doesn't affect the meaning in any way, other than couch it in the implication - to the layman - that the extent of the sentence following, is limited by that sentence. However, it isn't; if you parse the English, the two sentences are not connected.
If you don't want people plugging in strange USB sticks, create a policy and post a memo to make sure everyone knows it's not allowed. Bet that would cut the majority of cases, problem solved. The fact is people don't apply 'user education' simply because it isn't really the huge problem in the real world that it's being made out to be here. If it was, we'd see more action to create policy against it. The only place this will be a serious problem is in poorly run IT departments where Windows isn't updated and antivirus software isn't installed and users all have 'root'.
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
The keyword there is "under" the Constitution. They aren't supposed to trample over it or go around it or sidestep it or ignore it. They are required to uphold and implement it.
The Constitution is written in plain, simple English. Might I suggest you read it sometime - in fact anyone can read it and understand it quite clearly. The SC doesn't have the "final say" insofar as they cannot have the "final say" over and above the Constitution, their JOB is to UPHOLD the Constitution - the Constitution itself IS the "final say". The fact that it's become that way is because we've lost the "consent of the governed" because people like you have been convinced that SCOTUS gets to "interpret" it however they please, and have been convinced that it is something so arcane and obscure and difficult to understand that "interpreting" it can only be done by a tiny number of specially appointed elite.
The very idea of the Supreme Court "weighing in" is a bit flawed. The SC is supposed to UPHOLD the Constitution, not sit around and decide which parts they, as a small handful of individuals, agree can be totally streamrolled, ignored, and used as toilet paper. There isn't much to "weigh in" - it's blatantly unconstitutional, and the only way they can ethically "decide" is for the Constitution. In spite of many of us having been convinced otherwise, the "consent-of-the-governed" mandate of the SC doesn't actually include "getting rid of the Bill of Rights".
A file server isn't complicated or expensive - IF you happen to have someone with half a clue in your organization. Believe me, not everyone has that luxury - the world is pretty "stupid" out there. I think a lot of small (non-tech, e.g. a small florist or whatever) businesses would find this simplifies things for them.
The tents are air conditioned with diesel-powered ECUs because people get heat related illnesses when they are not.
Absolute nonsense, people have been living in deserts (and fighting wars there) for literally thousands of years without the existence of air conditioning.
I think the real problem is that the US force is a volunteer one, so they need to offer some comfort and perks in order to maintain morale and convince troops to actually go over there and get shot at. If every soldier had a much more miserable experience from sweltering in the blistering heat, many more of them would likely decide to quit. Think of it as a job perk.
No, it couldn't, because solar equipment is much more expensive than fuel-based or other forms of electricity generation. The "roadblock" is that it would cost a shitload more, and then we'd be talking about $30bn and not $20bn.
Well there does come a point called "insolvency" where you literally can't pay back anymore because the debt becomes larger than the amount that can theoretically be siphoned off economic productivity of the people. At that point not all of it will ever get paid back, and one either has a partial controlled default, a catastrophic default with bond market carnage, or what has been called "default by stealth" which involves printing more money to lower the value of the amounts that get paid back. The US is flirting dangerously close to that point. What should be kept in mind is that what is being robbed from future generations, is not a number, but quality of life... we'll all be poorer in our retirements, less able to get by on a month-to-month basis, less able to send our kids to college etc. regardless of which path to insolvency is followed.
The future generations will unfortunately be forced to pay, because you bet that the corrupt bankers that seem to own Congress aren't going to just give up this lucrative source of income.
Note also that insolvency is 100% mathematically inevitable if you keep spending more than you produce (unless the economy grows faster than the difference as a result - which it isn't by a long shot), so unless we stop spending the only question is "when" and "how".
But if the best code is 9991, then a thief should try it first, which would make it not the best code, which would make something else the best code, which would make some other code the one thieves would try first, which...
Slashdot Mirror
It used to be that the stupidity got modded down, now the stupidity gets +5.
"Market forces" don't inherently ignore the tragedy of the commons if the property rights of individuals get respected, and the reason they don't is because of corporatism, which is decidedly not "the market". In a true market-based society, you would be able to sue the polluter and win, as pollution always infringes on someone's property rights.
"Idiotic" would be thinking that playing with semantics actually shows us that incandescents aren't actually, yes, effectively banned. An "efficiency standard" is a great euphemism though for a ban.
I feel naked without a wristwatch on.
Congratulations, you've been "branded" by the jewelry industry.
If you're letting society dictate what is "in" and "out" for you as a man, even if it's literally "faux masculinity", then I think you've already missed the whole point of masculinity and "being a man". March to your own drumbeat.
The only situation I've found a watch useful for is when I'm on my motorbike, as it doesn't have a clock on the dash, and I can't reach for my cellphone.
Other than that, a watch for most men today is a fashion accessory. For 99% of requirements, the cellphone clock display has replaced the need for a wristwatch.
This also explains why the slashdot summary reads exactly like the kind of advertisement you would see in e.g. a men's magazine pushing products like cosmetics for men and other crap we don't need.
That's absurd on the face of it, you don't need FTTH for the SKA, because the data isn't going to be distributed on a large scale to homes! For the SKA, you only need one fat pipe leading from the SKA, out to the under-ocean cables.
Yeah, seriously, if there's one thing I've learned it's that even rival lawyers will protect one another when it comes to defending and expanding the power the 'system' gives lawyers to screw over everyone else.
You kidding? In the world of lawyers this type of action probably makes him a hero.
Great, a whole 70MW from all of Bonneville's stations in total, now if only there were about 1000 times as many dams all over the place, including in dry areas. You have clearly shown us the answer.
Can't start wars without money, and after the abovementioned, who would lend it?
Armstrong, Lovell, and Cernan are -- knowingly or unknowingly -- lobbying for an old, failed model of government contracting, not for the continuation of the American space program.
Yup, what I was going to say, but better said.
They aren't even implying it, they are stating it.
There are other reasons to expect they "probably" wouldn't actually do anything like that, as it would harm their reputation --- but it wouldn't be because this ToS doesn't explicitly allow them to --- it does, and legally it would be only incidental that they don't exercise that right. Certainly it may raise the company's paper value if looking for valuations for funding.
Yes, but the "Service" isn't defined by the previous sentence at all in any way whatsoever, is vague and open-ended and refers to pretty much anything. It still says exactly what it say, out of context. So what's your point?
Um, it still sounds just as bad to me even in context. Legally, the sentence "We sometimes need your permission to do what you ask us to do with your stuff (for example, hosting, making public, or sharing your files)." doesn't affect the meaning in any way, other than couch it in the implication - to the layman - that the extent of the sentence following, is limited by that sentence. However, it isn't; if you parse the English, the two sentences are not connected.
If you don't want people plugging in strange USB sticks, create a policy and post a memo to make sure everyone knows it's not allowed. Bet that would cut the majority of cases, problem solved. The fact is people don't apply 'user education' simply because it isn't really the huge problem in the real world that it's being made out to be here. If it was, we'd see more action to create policy against it. The only place this will be a serious problem is in poorly run IT departments where Windows isn't updated and antivirus software isn't installed and users all have 'root'.
SCOTUS judges take the following oath:
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
The keyword there is "under" the Constitution. They aren't supposed to trample over it or go around it or sidestep it or ignore it. They are required to uphold and implement it.
The Constitution is written in plain, simple English. Might I suggest you read it sometime - in fact anyone can read it and understand it quite clearly. The SC doesn't have the "final say" insofar as they cannot have the "final say" over and above the Constitution, their JOB is to UPHOLD the Constitution - the Constitution itself IS the "final say". The fact that it's become that way is because we've lost the "consent of the governed" because people like you have been convinced that SCOTUS gets to "interpret" it however they please, and have been convinced that it is something so arcane and obscure and difficult to understand that "interpreting" it can only be done by a tiny number of specially appointed elite.
The very idea of the Supreme Court "weighing in" is a bit flawed. The SC is supposed to UPHOLD the Constitution, not sit around and decide which parts they, as a small handful of individuals, agree can be totally streamrolled, ignored, and used as toilet paper. There isn't much to "weigh in" - it's blatantly unconstitutional, and the only way they can ethically "decide" is for the Constitution. In spite of many of us having been convinced otherwise, the "consent-of-the-governed" mandate of the SC doesn't actually include "getting rid of the Bill of Rights".
A file server isn't complicated or expensive - IF you happen to have someone with half a clue in your organization. Believe me, not everyone has that luxury - the world is pretty "stupid" out there. I think a lot of small (non-tech, e.g. a small florist or whatever) businesses would find this simplifies things for them.
I've been "forced" to use it for literally years on one of my main machines now, and I can't even being to remotely get used to the damn thing.
The tents are air conditioned with diesel-powered ECUs because people get heat related illnesses when they are not.
Absolute nonsense, people have been living in deserts (and fighting wars there) for literally thousands of years without the existence of air conditioning.
I think the real problem is that the US force is a volunteer one, so they need to offer some comfort and perks in order to maintain morale and convince troops to actually go over there and get shot at. If every soldier had a much more miserable experience from sweltering in the blistering heat, many more of them would likely decide to quit. Think of it as a job perk.
No, it couldn't, because solar equipment is much more expensive than fuel-based or other forms of electricity generation. The "roadblock" is that it would cost a shitload more, and then we'd be talking about $30bn and not $20bn.
Well there does come a point called "insolvency" where you literally can't pay back anymore because the debt becomes larger than the amount that can theoretically be siphoned off economic productivity of the people. At that point not all of it will ever get paid back, and one either has a partial controlled default, a catastrophic default with bond market carnage, or what has been called "default by stealth" which involves printing more money to lower the value of the amounts that get paid back. The US is flirting dangerously close to that point. What should be kept in mind is that what is being robbed from future generations, is not a number, but quality of life ... we'll all be poorer in our retirements, less able to get by on a month-to-month basis, less able to send our kids to college etc. regardless of which path to insolvency is followed.
The future generations will unfortunately be forced to pay, because you bet that the corrupt bankers that seem to own Congress aren't going to just give up this lucrative source of income.
Note also that insolvency is 100% mathematically inevitable if you keep spending more than you produce (unless the economy grows faster than the difference as a result - which it isn't by a long shot), so unless we stop spending the only question is "when" and "how".
But if the best code is 9991, then a thief should try it first, which would make it not the best code, which would make something else the best code, which would make some other code the one thieves would try first, which ...