I'm not a diver so I'll take your word for it, but I assume that depth would play a role.
It is actually kind of neat. As you go deeper the air in your lungs is at a higher pressure. At 100ft underwater, the air in your lungs is at 3 times atmospheric pressure, or 44 psi. I have never tried a free swimming ascent from that deep, but I am told that you can easily exhale all the way to the surface.
I have a few breaths swim and I drown because I dropped my damn breathing apparatus! It's a stupid design even if it would work!
Or you could do a free swimming ascent and certainly not drown. Just remember to exhale vigorously on your way up, at 30 ft you have twice as much air in your lungs.
Available on store shelves after they invent the 3 core technologies cited, the micro compressor, micro battery, and air/water osmosis membrane. Look for it in 2050.
Central to your character is the idea that you are smarter, more perceptive, and more rational than most (all?) people. It's just not the case. I am at least as well educated as you in history and logic. The difference between us is that it's *your* attitudes that are twisted.
You're just trolling, and attempt to change the discussion by attacking when your points are invalidated.
Did you find a mirror and start arguing with it?!?
The original complaint was that the IRS delayed the applications, such that the groups could not participate in the political debate leading to the 2012 US presidential election. The groups in fact were not able to participate.
This garbage is getting tiresome. NO ONE prevented those groups from participating, not even a little bit. Their COMPLAINT (which is false) was that they couldn't fund their activities on MY dime as bogus tax exempt groups.
I'm tired of this wah, wah, wah, when not only is the actual complaint a lie, the lie is compounded by posts like yours which claim something even farther from the truth.
All that you know how to write is garbage. I checked.
So... you give no justification, evidence, support, for this sub-theory, just assert it and act like you won? I mean, I made an honest attempt to read up about it, and I can't find anything substantive to support this claim(much less a meaningful claim that it was one sided, and affected "conservative" groups alone).
I was not aware that a winner would be selected. You claimed that the, "goalposts had been shifted", so I reiterated the original complaint. Make intelligent points, and people will certainly listen.
As the OP pointed out, most of the groups were eventually given the tax-exempt status... so they couldn't have been that bad! Richard Nixon pioneered the idea of using the executive bureaucracy to punish his political opponents, and it is a practice which continues to this day. This is not a partisan issue, this is a need for political revolution issue.
So your grievance is that groups which should not qualify for the tax status if they are political were delayed with their participating in the political debate?
Reiterating the point of a debate is hardly a grievance. Whether the political party is mine or not, the questions arising from the actions of the IRS deserve an intelligent debate... which would consist of answering of the actual questions asked.
I assume this is a evidence substantiated sub-theory, rather than absurdly shifted goalposts when reality shows to be the opposite of paranoid claims. Right?
Nobody is shifting the goalposts, besides you. The original complaint was that the IRS delayed the applications, such that the groups could not participate in the political debate leading to the 2012 US presidential election. The groups in fact were not able to participate. Nobody gives a shit, really, whether they were granted the status afterwards... it is a superfluous detail, only further supporting the original thesis.
I'm not saying that it is an ideal situation, but realistically, you have to deal with weeds somehow. weed control is not optional, if it were farmers wouldn't bother spraying in the first place,
Prepare for a diatribe about neo-communist subsistence farming.
Oh, thank you. As a Macintosh people, I now understand myself much better. Thank you for your pithy post.
Actually, I was warning the original poster not to attempt factual discussion with your kind. In reality, you will need much more extensive introspection to discover how blindly you place faith in advertisements.
In ECE we learned that the only relevant benchmark is time elapsed to complete an actual task.
SPARC was a great chip, particularly considering the other options available when it was made. Intel has learned a lot of lessons since then.
Cisco is another one of those marketing hype over specifications sort of places. How else would they charge an enormous up front cost for modest hardware, only to require lavish recurring costs as well?
Price out buying a computer from dell, and then adding a commodity video card (remember only Apple stops you from doing this).
Add to that, the Mac Pro only consumes 450w versus the Dell's 1500w,
Neither computer even draws anywhere close to 450w in normal operation, probably closer to 150w at idle, and maybe a little higher when working. You have amusingly confused a lower quality PSU to a much higher quality one, and in true Apple fashion picked which ever one goes in the Macintosh as better. The Apple has lower peak power needs because it has no internal expansion space, so instead you will be bleeding power from the various wall warts and power dongles that come with external accessories.
With upwards of 32GB sitting on one DIMM these days, ever think there might not be a need for 16 fucking DIMM slots anymore? Just a thought.
This makes the dangerous assumption that the memory needs of applications will remain the same going into the future. In three or four years when applications make use of more memory, you will be buying a new Macintosh. Oh, I see how that works.
Defame means de-fame (e.g. take from famous to infamous, or just reduce the fame of). It's only legally actionable in most cases when untrue. UAE did defame itself for someone defaming it.
You might want to check the dictionary mate, defame is defined as: " to harm the reputation of by libel or slander". Slander and libel both refer to untrue statements.
Come to a conversation about the present state of China being a new global super power, start talking about being ethnically Chinese. Use caps and abrasive punctuation. Troll.
Considering taxation percentage as a ratio of total tax paid to total income is the only really fair way to do it. Otherwise there is confusion about amounts paid at lower taxes, standard/itemized deductions, and any number of other things, including paying only capital gains on certain income. We most likely agree that any legitimate discussion on the matter must revolve around what is actually earned, and what is actually paid... not idle conversation on tax brackets. Some amount of disagreement arises from trying to guess what the wealthy pay in terms of taxes, because for the most part it is secret to the casual observer. Pundits on either side will inflate/deflate the actual percentage paid to convenience, all while neither side actually knows shit about the truth of the matter. Show me that Bill Gates is paying 16%, and you have truly convinced someone to see things the way you do.
One of my biggest concerns with the fair share argument is that it almost never outlines what a fair share is, besides a strong implication that the present condition of things does not fit the definition. Anyone who can articulate an idea of what they would consider to be fair, in terms of actual numbers, earns almost infinitely more respect in my book. Saying a number indicates that, in your view, there can ever be a fair accommodation. Frequently, this talk is nothing more than mush mouthed class warfare shit, with people who can not see any fair solution. So maybe we disagree on the magnitude of taxation, but I respect you enough to be curious about what you think.
Is your proposal that the tax percentage paid should be roughly pegged to the percentage that their total income represents of all income in the US? Say the total income earned in the US is approximately 1,000,000,000/year, and someone earns $50,000/year; their tax would be c*(50,000/1,000,000,000)%... is this correct?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a diver so I'll take your word for it, but I assume that depth would play a role.
It is actually kind of neat. As you go deeper the air in your lungs is at a higher pressure. At 100ft underwater, the air in your lungs is at 3 times atmospheric pressure, or 44 psi. I have never tried a free swimming ascent from that deep, but I am told that you can easily exhale all the way to the surface.
I have a few breaths swim and I drown because I dropped my damn breathing apparatus! It's a stupid design even if it would work!
Or you could do a free swimming ascent and certainly not drown. Just remember to exhale vigorously on your way up, at 30 ft you have twice as much air in your lungs.
Available on store shelves after they invent the 3 core technologies cited, the micro compressor, micro battery, and air/water osmosis membrane. Look for it in 2050.
Central to your character is the idea that you are smarter, more perceptive, and more rational than most (all?) people. It's just not the case. I am at least as well educated as you in history and logic. The difference between us is that it's *your* attitudes that are twisted. You're just trolling, and attempt to change the discussion by attacking when your points are invalidated.
Did you find a mirror and start arguing with it?!?
The original complaint was that the IRS delayed the applications, such that the groups could not participate in the political debate leading to the 2012 US presidential election. The groups in fact were not able to participate.
This garbage is getting tiresome. NO ONE prevented those groups from participating, not even a little bit. Their COMPLAINT (which is false) was that they couldn't fund their activities on MY dime as bogus tax exempt groups. I'm tired of this wah, wah, wah, when not only is the actual complaint a lie, the lie is compounded by posts like yours which claim something even farther from the truth.
All that you know how to write is garbage. I checked.
So... you give no justification, evidence, support, for this sub-theory, just assert it and act like you won? I mean, I made an honest attempt to read up about it, and I can't find anything substantive to support this claim(much less a meaningful claim that it was one sided, and affected "conservative" groups alone).
I was not aware that a winner would be selected. You claimed that the, "goalposts had been shifted", so I reiterated the original complaint. Make intelligent points, and people will certainly listen.
As the OP pointed out, most of the groups were eventually given the tax-exempt status... so they couldn't have been that bad! Richard Nixon pioneered the idea of using the executive bureaucracy to punish his political opponents, and it is a practice which continues to this day. This is not a partisan issue, this is a need for political revolution issue.
So your grievance is that groups which should not qualify for the tax status if they are political were delayed with their participating in the political debate?
Reiterating the point of a debate is hardly a grievance. Whether the political party is mine or not, the questions arising from the actions of the IRS deserve an intelligent debate... which would consist of answering of the actual questions asked.
I assume this is a evidence substantiated sub-theory, rather than absurdly shifted goalposts when reality shows to be the opposite of paranoid claims. Right?
Nobody is shifting the goalposts, besides you. The original complaint was that the IRS delayed the applications, such that the groups could not participate in the political debate leading to the 2012 US presidential election. The groups in fact were not able to participate. Nobody gives a shit, really, whether they were granted the status afterwards... it is a superfluous detail, only further supporting the original thesis.
Do not ask a computer scientist to be an electrical engineer.
Forcing everyone to use the new version of Gnome and Unity should drive adoption as well. Soon Linux will dominate the desktop....
I'm not saying that it is an ideal situation, but realistically, you have to deal with weeds somehow. weed control is not optional, if it were farmers wouldn't bother spraying in the first place,
Prepare for a diatribe about neo-communist subsistence farming.
Try reading the rest of the thread.
Let me help you out:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/defame
Oh, thank you. As a Macintosh people, I now understand myself much better. Thank you for your pithy post.
Actually, I was warning the original poster not to attempt factual discussion with your kind. In reality, you will need much more extensive introspection to discover how blindly you place faith in advertisements.
In ECE we learned that the only relevant benchmark is time elapsed to complete an actual task.
SPARC was a great chip, particularly considering the other options available when it was made. Intel has learned a lot of lessons since then.
Cisco is another one of those marketing hype over specifications sort of places. How else would they charge an enormous up front cost for modest hardware, only to require lavish recurring costs as well?
That is a pretty impressive idle load. Any fair comparison would still include whatever external devices are needed to compliment the computer though.
Add to that, the Mac Pro only consumes 450w versus the Dell's 1500w,
Neither computer even draws anywhere close to 450w in normal operation, probably closer to 150w at idle, and maybe a little higher when working. You have amusingly confused a lower quality PSU to a much higher quality one, and in true Apple fashion picked which ever one goes in the Macintosh as better. The Apple has lower peak power needs because it has no internal expansion space, so instead you will be bleeding power from the various wall warts and power dongles that come with external accessories.
Someone will be standing by with insanely overpriced Thunderbolt based devices for you to buy.
With upwards of 32GB sitting on one DIMM these days, ever think there might not be a need for 16 fucking DIMM slots anymore? Just a thought.
This makes the dangerous assumption that the memory needs of applications will remain the same going into the future. In three or four years when applications make use of more memory, you will be buying a new Macintosh. Oh, I see how that works.
Macintosh people don't like relevant specifications, only marketing hype.
Defame means de-fame (e.g. take from famous to infamous, or just reduce the fame of). It's only legally actionable in most cases when untrue. UAE did defame itself for someone defaming it.
You might want to check the dictionary mate, defame is defined as: " to harm the reputation of by libel or slander". Slander and libel both refer to untrue statements.
Come to a conversation about the present state of China being a new global super power, start talking about being ethnically Chinese. Use caps and abrasive punctuation. Troll.
You can use bold and italic in Slashdot. Try to keep your trolling classy.
Considering taxation percentage as a ratio of total tax paid to total income is the only really fair way to do it. Otherwise there is confusion about amounts paid at lower taxes, standard/itemized deductions, and any number of other things, including paying only capital gains on certain income. We most likely agree that any legitimate discussion on the matter must revolve around what is actually earned, and what is actually paid... not idle conversation on tax brackets. Some amount of disagreement arises from trying to guess what the wealthy pay in terms of taxes, because for the most part it is secret to the casual observer. Pundits on either side will inflate/deflate the actual percentage paid to convenience, all while neither side actually knows shit about the truth of the matter. Show me that Bill Gates is paying 16%, and you have truly convinced someone to see things the way you do.
One of my biggest concerns with the fair share argument is that it almost never outlines what a fair share is, besides a strong implication that the present condition of things does not fit the definition. Anyone who can articulate an idea of what they would consider to be fair, in terms of actual numbers, earns almost infinitely more respect in my book. Saying a number indicates that, in your view, there can ever be a fair accommodation. Frequently, this talk is nothing more than mush mouthed class warfare shit, with people who can not see any fair solution. So maybe we disagree on the magnitude of taxation, but I respect you enough to be curious about what you think.
Is your proposal that the tax percentage paid should be roughly pegged to the percentage that their total income represents of all income in the US? Say the total income earned in the US is approximately 1,000,000,000/year, and someone earns $50,000/year; their tax would be c*(50,000/1,000,000,000)%... is this correct?