Where I went to college, the second semester CS course was designed to run through as many different types of languages as they could get through and still enable the students to write something useful. "This is language A, an example of category X. It has features D, E, F and problems R, S, T. It is often used for problem types K, L, M. Write a solution for one of those problem types as your assignment. Next is language B, an example of category Y..."
Consider the psychological impact of targeting the security apparatus itself: the thing that is claimed to keep people safe turns out to be what enabled them to be killed.
1) It is a patent application, not a patent 2) Only claim 2 mentions the total lack of windows whatsoever. This is just to cover any ratio of virtual vs actual windows to be sure so that someone else cannot apply for another patent with an explicit ratio and claim that it is different.
"The mayor, the local press, and local government kept trumpeting how many lives this would save."
So you blame the traffic engineer for what they were forced to do by political pressure from the public.
The most common case I see is people bitching that traffic engineers won't add a stop light at their favorite intersection. The thing is, stop lights don't prevent crashes per se but rather trade off the chances of more dangerous side impacts for the chances of less dangerous rear impacts. Depending on the relative traffic at the intersection the stop light can increase injuries if there are much more new rear impacts than prevented side impacts.
So, in your situation how do you know that the traffic engineers actual preferred action wasn't "Don't do that; it will just make it worse"?
" It is unconscionable for them to be forced to provide benefits that are in opposition to their morals."
Such a person could solve this problem on their own by not choosing to hire employees to create a larger business than they could operate on their own.
An employee's compensation comes in the form of direct wages and benefits that include medical insurance. One way or another the employer is paying for it.
Does the employer have a say in how the employee spends their direct wages? If not why is come compensation privileged and some not?
Does the employee receive some other compensation to make up for the reduced medical insurance coverage? If not why should some employers be entitled to compensate their employees less on the basis of religious beliefs?
I have never once seem SIMs for sale in person anywhere in the US. This of course is not necessarily a representative of all locations, but it shoudl at least explain why some people find this to be a difficult question to answer and why they would appreciate someone who could answer it.
You have assumed that any amount of subsidization removes any amount of information from prices but have failed to demonstrate this. If this were true then the system would be no worse off charging no fares whatsoever if the system accepts any subsidy, which is clearly absurd.
Even if your only goal is to maximize fare box recovery, rejecting any social objectives, it is possible for the optimum fare to be less or more than the current fare. Transit costs include fixed capital costs for infrastructure and equipment, operating costs per vehicle run for labor and energy, and variable operating costs per rider. The overall costs vary slowly per marginal rider, so if the demand is elastic with price is it conceivable that by reducing price you can decrease the marginal subsidy by way in increasing the load per vehicle.
Slashdot Mirror
Where I went to college, the second semester CS course was designed to run through as many different types of languages as they could get through and still enable the students to write something useful. "This is language A, an example of category X. It has features D, E, F and problems R, S, T. It is often used for problem types K, L, M. Write a solution for one of those problem types as your assignment. Next is language B, an example of category Y..."
"you'll only maim a few people directly"
The proximate objective of the terrorist is not maiming or killing, it is terror.
"their bodies will form a shield of sorts protecting others"
Toss your device up, trigger with a pull string. Think of a bounding mine deployed at very close range.
"But Joe, he could've taken it into a bathroom and put it together, couldn't he?"
Not on any plane I've ever been on ;-)
"Are they going to be rescreened before boarding the flight from B to A?"
FYI, there is no concept of "transit" in US airports. Everyone gets re-screened to get on a connecting flight.
"the psychological impact"
Consider the psychological impact of targeting the security apparatus itself: the thing that is claimed to keep people safe turns out to be what enabled them to be killed.
"There was a shoe bomb."
Clearly, we should be required to turn on our shoes.
1) It is a patent application, not a patent
2) Only claim 2 mentions the total lack of windows whatsoever. This is just to cover any ratio of virtual vs actual windows to be sure so that someone else cannot apply for another patent with an explicit ratio and claim that it is different.
The you will have time to read the actual patent application and can constrain your comments on that basis.
Because clearly the US has no population concentrations anywhere.
"Also, you cant save whiteboards"
Camera.
Everyone has them in their phone now. Take pictures of the whiteboard, and the person assigned to take minutes will redraw the diagrams nicely later.
... just how deep the conspiracy goes!
"The mayor, the local press, and local government kept trumpeting how many lives this would save."
So you blame the traffic engineer for what they were forced to do by political pressure from the public.
The most common case I see is people bitching that traffic engineers won't add a stop light at their favorite intersection. The thing is, stop lights don't prevent crashes per se but rather trade off the chances of more dangerous side impacts for the chances of less dangerous rear impacts. Depending on the relative traffic at the intersection the stop light can increase injuries if there are much more new rear impacts than prevented side impacts.
So, in your situation how do you know that the traffic engineers actual preferred action wasn't "Don't do that; it will just make it worse"?
His understanding of macroeconomics is on par for a typical bitcoin evangelist.
"this guy's lucky he wasn't shot dead"
The day ain't over yet.
"You need to go to the employee and... ... ask!"
Ask? That's crazy talk!
Capital deserves it; labor does not.
(Land can go fuck itself.)
" It is unconscionable for them to be forced to provide benefits that are in opposition to their morals."
Such a person could solve this problem on their own by not choosing to hire employees to create a larger business than they could operate on their own.
"should be paid for by the person themselves"
An employee's compensation comes in the form of direct wages and benefits that include medical insurance. One way or another the employer is paying for it.
Does the employer have a say in how the employee spends their direct wages? If not why is come compensation privileged and some not?
Does the employee receive some other compensation to make up for the reduced medical insurance coverage? If not why should some employers be entitled to compensate their employees less on the basis of religious beliefs?
31 CFR 515.420 does not refute anything that WaffleMonster said.
Read the actual bill? That's crazy talk!
I have never once seem SIMs for sale in person anywhere in the US. This of course is not necessarily a representative of all locations, but it shoudl at least explain why some people find this to be a difficult question to answer and why they would appreciate someone who could answer it.
"go read a wiki page."
A relevant example of which would be...?
"shouldn't you have to pay for it?"
Should the mobility of labor be comparable to the mobility of capital for a rational market to form?
You have assumed that any amount of subsidization removes any amount of information from prices but have failed to demonstrate this. If this were true then the system would be no worse off charging no fares whatsoever if the system accepts any subsidy, which is clearly absurd.
Even if your only goal is to maximize fare box recovery, rejecting any social objectives, it is possible for the optimum fare to be less or more than the current fare. Transit costs include fixed capital costs for infrastructure and equipment, operating costs per vehicle run for labor and energy, and variable operating costs per rider. The overall costs vary slowly per marginal rider, so if the demand is elastic with price is it conceivable that by reducing price you can decrease the marginal subsidy by way in increasing the load per vehicle.
Ted Sturgeon, is that you?