This is a bogus claim, because the alternative is simply not having the money. There are plenty of checking accounts with nonzero interest.
An example to make things clearer:
Imagine that you write 12 checks per year (one a month), each of which is in the sum of $1000. In case A they get cashed immediately in case B they get cashed one year later.
Case A: You make zero interest, each month $1000 is deducted from your checking account. Case B: For the month you make $1000 * 1/12 of a year's interest. The second month $2000 * 1/12 of a year's interest. And so on until the 12th month where you make $12000 * 1/12 of a year's interest. Then things begin declining as the money begins getting taken out. (so month 13 is $11000 * 1/12, and so on). After 24 months, your $12000 has been deducted. However, assuming an interest rate of.6% (for ease of math), we would have made $720 in interest.
I call him up and as soon as he hears that he knows he was completely wrong.
and
Every time I see my doctor now, he looks sheepish, because he made such a big point of not trusting my case to some kid straight out of medical school.
These two sentiments are why I'd trust your doctor. Everyone makes mistakes. Your doctor seems to be good at realizing when he did it, correcting his mistake quickly, and remembering it for a while (enough that he feels obviously guilty). That'd make me trust more that he'd care and do the right thing by me to the best of his ability.
Or you could believe the truth: the original word in the bible translates to "young woman" not virgin; there was a mistranslation along the way, and some people thought "Hey, that's a nice story, we'll keep it" even though it had no basis in the original bible as written . . .
According to Avert.org there are 39.5 million people living with HIV/AIDS. Let's round that up to 40 mil and say each one gains $100k for the drug company in question. That's $4 trillion in revenue for the company in question. Now let's presume that they make a vaccine and have that vaccine cost $10k. According to the US Census Bureau there were 242.4 million insured Americans in 2003, which is roughly 80% of America. Assume that a bunch of them don't want or don't get the vaccine for some variety of reasons. Let's say we end up with 200 million people who want the vaccine. That's $2 trillion in revenue -- for America alone. Canada, Great Britain, France, Russia . . . that $2T shortfall will be made up quickly. Furthermore, a whole generation will have to be immunized, since by these projections, the virus will be far from wiped out. (Note: If 95% of humanity as a whole got the vaccine, 95% of 6 billion paying $10k is a huge, huge amount of money, even if it's just one time only.)
If that's not enough to convince you it's very lucrative, let me point this out: there are SEVERAL pharmaceutical companies. If you aren't the one making the $100k/year treatment for AIDS, you really, really, really want a slice of that pie. If you can do it by curing the disease and making trillions of dollars, you certainly will.
And if several companies split the $100k treatment between them, it gets even more lucrative to have exclusive control over the vaccine.
This vaccine would be immensely profitable; nobody would pass it up. Not even the companies making the treatment.
The best analysis of the deduction by GP is using predicate logic with the universal and existential quantifiers*.
(1) "Cops are people" = Ax(Cx --> Px) (2) "There are good people and there are bad people." = ExEy(y!=x ^ Px ^ Gx ^ Py ^ By) ---- (3) "Therefore, there are good cops and bad cops." = ExEy(y!=x ^ Cx ^ Gx ^ Cy ^ By)
Where C is the predicate 'is a cop' P is the predicate 'is a person' G is the predicate 'is good' and B is the predicate 'is bad'.
You were correct that the deduction is in fact not valid. However your reasoning was quite wrong.
We can simplify line (2) using Existential Instantiation to know that there is some a and b such that all the following are true: a!=b, Pa, Ga, Pb, Bb. That is, a and b are different people. a is good and b is bad.
But no matter how we use the first line, we cannot deduce that either a or b is a cop.
*The Universal Quantifier should look like an upside down A. The Existential Quantifier should look like a backwards E. I'm too lazy to figure out how to type them as such, so I will use A and E.
"Just because you buy a DVD to watch at home doesn't give you the right to invite friends over to watch it too", Dan Glickman, head of the MPAA (FTA).
Now, I really want to know this: So, what rights do we get for buying a DVD? The right to watch it by my lonesome? Should each family of four have to pay for four copies of a movie? If I want to watch a DVD with my girlfriend, should I have to buy two copies? If I could get four copies worth if I had a familiy, why couldn't a single guy invite three of his buddies over to watch the film? Am I really supposed to believe that buying a DVD merely allows ONE person to watch the DVD and no more?
Because, to be perfectly honest, 75% of the reason I buy a DVD is to show it to friends that haven't seen it already. My DVD library is a collection of movies I think everyone should see (and I wouldn't mind watching repeatedly). If I were "not allowed" to buy DVDs with this express purpose, I don't think I would buy any at all. I don't rewatch movies all that often on my own; when I want to see a movie -- especially alone -- I want to see something new.
In short: This is ridiculous. I wish there were an effective way to do something about it.
> I wouldn't judge Firefox because of the 2.0. Better wait for 3.0.
When 3.0 comes out will you say not to judge it because of the major changes scheduled for 4.0?
Not trying to troll here, but what we should judge a software by, imho, is the current released stable version. You can't judge a game by what the game will end up looking like when they finally patch the bugs; what they release is what you have.
Especially if they're going to make a huge PR push for people to use 2.0, they really ought to consider that a version people should judge by.
That said, I like FF 2.0 just fine, but maybe I'm easily pleased?
Am I the only one who saw this and thought:
"Okay, I remember what a Red Box did and what a Blue Box did . . . but what in the world is a Beige Box?"
Then I looked it up and I remembered . . . and realized that with VOIP and cell phones abundant these days, a box to steal someone else's phone line really isn't all that useful anymore . . .
The article claims that Gaim 2.0 doesn't have Google Talk support . . . however, in this case TFA is quite wrong.
Google Talk is done on the Jabber protocol.
To set up Google Talk, set up a Jabber account, your S/N is your gmail username, and the server is talk.google.com. I have it set up right now myself, and it works fine.
The gaim people could, of course, make it easier to set up GT, but the support is in fact there.
It was always that way. Killing is perfectly justified for a large variety of reasons in the Torah. Capital punishment is common, there are fairly complex rules for retribution, and plenty of times G-d Himself says "go out and win a glorious victory" if you read the assorted Prophets and Writings. If all killing were outlawed, there'd be a heck of a lot of contradiction here.
Murder, though, is unjustified killing. It breaks one of the Ten Commandments to pick a child at random and bash his head in. It does not break one of the Ten Commandments to kill your enemy in battle.
I prefer to reading which doesn't cause G-d to be commanding His people to break the Ten Commandments, personally.
For the nitpickers: The Hebrew word in question is 'ratzach' (which is conjugated to tirtzach in the text; Exodus XX, 13). Modern usage (according to my dictionary) clearly indicates murder as the first definition, and 'kill' as secondary. There is another verb 'harag' which can also mean 'kill', unfortunately I'm not as up on my Hebrew, so I can't say for sure whether this word is: a) used for more general killing, b) used more for killing of animals, or c) a modern invention.
I suffer from Crohn's Disease, along with approximately half a million other Americans. To summarize: Crohn's is an autoimmune disease of the digestive tract which causes inflammation in various places. When you have inflammation in your intestines, that part of the intestine cannot reabsorb liquid.
I don't have a bad case. But there are some horror stories out there: people who have to go 10-20 times a day, people who end up needing permanent ileostomies (a surgical bypass of the end of the intestines), etc.
Even with my relatively mild case, I have to take three Sitz Baths a day, two showers a day, and cleaning up after I go is not fun on top of that.
This toilet seat? Sounds like it would be fantastic for me and others like me. It could probably save me 20 minutes a day, at least. If my health insurance covered it, or I could afford the thing, I'd buy one tomorrow. Seriously.
And one in 350 people in America have this problem along with me. And the numbers are rising. (The disease was unheard of pre-20th Century -- not from lack of diagnostic methods, from lack of existing. There's a growth curve that is followed in developing countries; a Crohn's specialist I spoke to said that there are varioius studies underway to figure out what parts of our diet changed enough to create such an outbreak -- he hinted at processed sugar being a leading candidate. Unfortunately I lack a citation here, but the head of the Crohn's & Colitis center at Mass General seems like a pretty good source to me.)
I can see these things selling very, very well if they can bring the price point down just a tad, or convince health insurance to cover it for people in scenarios like mine (even partially).
So, yeah, I'm unhealthy -- but it's not my fault, and one of these things could make quite a difference.
Actually, you forget a hidden cost of downloading: cost of electricity.
Running my computer that hard for that much time each month was at least an added 10$ to my electricity bill, probably more like 15 or 20. At that point, netflix is break even on cost and much, much less hassle.
(And since the dvd-rs I got early on turned out to be coaster material in 6 months whether they had data on them or not, I in fact don't have any of the stuff I got from those days . . . which is a shame because I never got around to watching any of it . ..)
Not only did I see that, I then wondered "I wonder what would happen if someone played '... of Doom!' on it" . . . my best guess? A wandering 7 year lich would show up. Conveniently, it's dead!
Doesn't the POSTER even RTFA these days? This bill cleared the committee. In fact, there's a line in the article which states: "The bill now moves fo the House floor for consideration."
Not that it's impossible it will pass anyway, but please guys, get it right. It's not that hard.
and exprss those sentiments in person. I just did.
Re:People are Obese regarless of Income or Geograp
on
Obesity Contagious?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
and an icy cold Coca-Cola
I'm surprised that after reading all the comments nobody has said anything about soda. Calories from soda are huge. A 2L bottle of soda runs about 2000 calories. If you have your main liquid consumption from soda you're probably drinking about 2 of these a week.
Switch over to water (0 calories), and you'll drop 4000 calories/week out of your diet instantly. That's almost 600 calories a day. It will make a difference. Get a Brita if you can't stand the taste of tap water, buy bottled water if you must spend money on your beverages.
But don't complain to me about being fat and then go grab the Big Gulp of Coke. You won't get any sympathy here.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a bogus claim, because the alternative is simply not having the money. There are plenty of checking accounts with nonzero interest.
An example to make things clearer:
Imagine that you write 12 checks per year (one a month), each of which is in the sum of $1000. In case A they get cashed immediately in case B they get cashed one year later.
Case A: You make zero interest, each month $1000 is deducted from your checking account. .6% (for ease of math), we would have made $720 in interest.
Case B: For the month you make $1000 * 1/12 of a year's interest. The second month $2000 * 1/12 of a year's interest. And so on until the 12th month where you make $12000 * 1/12 of a year's interest. Then things begin declining as the money begins getting taken out. (so month 13 is $11000 * 1/12, and so on). After 24 months, your $12000 has been deducted. However, assuming an interest rate of
I call him up and as soon as he hears that he knows he was completely wrong.
and
Every time I see my doctor now, he looks sheepish, because he made such a big point of not trusting my case to some kid straight out of medical school.
These two sentiments are why I'd trust your doctor. Everyone makes mistakes. Your doctor seems to be good at realizing when he did it, correcting his mistake quickly, and remembering it for a while (enough that he feels obviously guilty). That'd make me trust more that he'd care and do the right thing by me to the best of his ability.
There are only 10 hilarious emails he's ever gotten.
And he posted them both.
I live in New York. By the time any of the primaries reach me, the candidate has been decided.
So why should I pay attention to a race I have no part in?
Or you could believe the truth: the original word in the bible translates to "young woman" not virgin; there was a mistranslation along the way, and some people thought "Hey, that's a nice story, we'll keep it" even though it had no basis in the original bible as written . . .
According to Avert.org there are 39.5 million people living with HIV/AIDS. Let's round that up to 40 mil and say each one gains $100k for the drug company in question. That's $4 trillion in revenue for the company in question. Now let's presume that they make a vaccine and have that vaccine cost $10k. According to the US Census Bureau there were 242.4 million insured Americans in 2003, which is roughly 80% of America. Assume that a bunch of them don't want or don't get the vaccine for some variety of reasons. Let's say we end up with 200 million people who want the vaccine. That's $2 trillion in revenue -- for America alone. Canada, Great Britain, France, Russia . . . that $2T shortfall will be made up quickly. Furthermore, a whole generation will have to be immunized, since by these projections, the virus will be far from wiped out. (Note: If 95% of humanity as a whole got the vaccine, 95% of 6 billion paying $10k is a huge, huge amount of money, even if it's just one time only.)
If that's not enough to convince you it's very lucrative, let me point this out: there are SEVERAL pharmaceutical companies. If you aren't the one making the $100k/year treatment for AIDS, you really, really, really want a slice of that pie. If you can do it by curing the disease and making trillions of dollars, you certainly will.
And if several companies split the $100k treatment between them, it gets even more lucrative to have exclusive control over the vaccine.
This vaccine would be immensely profitable; nobody would pass it up. Not even the companies making the treatment.
Pshhh 8 digit number? n00b.
I'm totally rockin the 7 digit UIN.
My cell phone number? That's a bitch to remember though . . .
Offtopic Nitpicking Alert:
The best analysis of the deduction by GP is using predicate logic with the universal and existential quantifiers*.
(1) "Cops are people" = Ax(Cx --> Px)
(2) "There are good people and there are bad people." = ExEy(y!=x ^ Px ^ Gx ^ Py ^ By)
----
(3) "Therefore, there are good cops and bad cops." = ExEy(y!=x ^ Cx ^ Gx ^ Cy ^ By)
Where C is the predicate 'is a cop' P is the predicate 'is a person' G is the predicate 'is good' and B is the predicate 'is bad'.
You were correct that the deduction is in fact not valid. However your reasoning was quite wrong.
We can simplify line (2) using Existential Instantiation to know that there is some a and b such that all the following are true: a!=b, Pa, Ga, Pb, Bb. That is, a and b are different people. a is good and b is bad.
But no matter how we use the first line, we cannot deduce that either a or b is a cop.
*The Universal Quantifier should look like an upside down A. The Existential Quantifier should look like a backwards E. I'm too lazy to figure out how to type them as such, so I will use A and E.
It's a little known fact that bombs only hide under the clothing of really attractive people
Join with me in the call to BAN clothing on ATTRACTIVE PEOPLE.
If attractive people aren't naked all the time, the terrorists will win.
Also:
100%
-75%
-8.33%
-8.33%
-8.33%
------
$0
FOR ANY DOLLAR VALUE.
Unless you were trying to say that there's something special about 12.01 and 1.33 . . .
"Just because you buy a DVD to watch at home doesn't give you the right to invite friends over to watch it too", Dan Glickman, head of the MPAA (FTA).
Now, I really want to know this: So, what rights do we get for buying a DVD? The right to watch it by my lonesome? Should each family of four have to pay for four copies of a movie? If I want to watch a DVD with my girlfriend, should I have to buy two copies? If I could get four copies worth if I had a familiy, why couldn't a single guy invite three of his buddies over to watch the film? Am I really supposed to believe that buying a DVD merely allows ONE person to watch the DVD and no more?
Because, to be perfectly honest, 75% of the reason I buy a DVD is to show it to friends that haven't seen it already. My DVD library is a collection of movies I think everyone should see (and I wouldn't mind watching repeatedly). If I were "not allowed" to buy DVDs with this express purpose, I don't think I would buy any at all. I don't rewatch movies all that often on my own; when I want to see a movie -- especially alone -- I want to see something new.
In short: This is ridiculous. I wish there were an effective way to do something about it.
> I wouldn't judge Firefox because of the 2.0. Better wait for 3.0.
When 3.0 comes out will you say not to judge it because of the major changes scheduled for 4.0?
Not trying to troll here, but what we should judge a software by, imho, is the current released stable version. You can't judge a game by what the game will end up looking like when they finally patch the bugs; what they release is what you have.
Especially if they're going to make a huge PR push for people to use 2.0, they really ought to consider that a version people should judge by.
That said, I like FF 2.0 just fine, but maybe I'm easily pleased?
Then I looked it up and I remembered . . . and realized that with VOIP and cell phones abundant these days, a box to steal someone else's phone line really isn't all that useful anymore . . .
Man, I feel old.
The article claims that Gaim 2.0 doesn't have Google Talk support . . . however, in this case TFA is quite wrong.
Google Talk is done on the Jabber protocol.
To set up Google Talk, set up a Jabber account, your S/N is your gmail username, and the server is talk.google.com. I have it set up right now myself, and it works fine.
The gaim people could, of course, make it easier to set up GT, but the support is in fact there.
It was always that way. Killing is perfectly justified for a large variety of reasons in the Torah. Capital punishment is common, there are fairly complex rules for retribution, and plenty of times G-d Himself says "go out and win a glorious victory" if you read the assorted Prophets and Writings. If all killing were outlawed, there'd be a heck of a lot of contradiction here.
Murder, though, is unjustified killing. It breaks one of the Ten Commandments to pick a child at random and bash his head in. It does not break one of the Ten Commandments to kill your enemy in battle.
I prefer to reading which doesn't cause G-d to be commanding His people to break the Ten Commandments, personally.
For the nitpickers:
The Hebrew word in question is 'ratzach' (which is conjugated to tirtzach in the text; Exodus XX, 13). Modern usage (according to my dictionary) clearly indicates murder as the first definition, and 'kill' as secondary. There is another verb 'harag' which can also mean 'kill', unfortunately I'm not as up on my Hebrew, so I can't say for sure whether this word is: a) used for more general killing, b) used more for killing of animals, or c) a modern invention.
I suffer from Crohn's Disease, along with approximately half a million other Americans. To summarize: Crohn's is an autoimmune disease of the digestive tract which causes inflammation in various places. When you have inflammation in your intestines, that part of the intestine cannot reabsorb liquid.
I don't have a bad case. But there are some horror stories out there: people who have to go 10-20 times a day, people who end up needing permanent ileostomies (a surgical bypass of the end of the intestines), etc.
Even with my relatively mild case, I have to take three Sitz Baths a day, two showers a day, and cleaning up after I go is not fun on top of that.
This toilet seat? Sounds like it would be fantastic for me and others like me. It could probably save me 20 minutes a day, at least. If my health insurance covered it, or I could afford the thing, I'd buy one tomorrow. Seriously.
And one in 350 people in America have this problem along with me. And the numbers are rising. (The disease was unheard of pre-20th Century -- not from lack of diagnostic methods, from lack of existing. There's a growth curve that is followed in developing countries; a Crohn's specialist I spoke to said that there are varioius studies underway to figure out what parts of our diet changed enough to create such an outbreak -- he hinted at processed sugar being a leading candidate. Unfortunately I lack a citation here, but the head of the Crohn's & Colitis center at Mass General seems like a pretty good source to me.)
I can see these things selling very, very well if they can bring the price point down just a tad, or convince health insurance to cover it for people in scenarios like mine (even partially).
So, yeah, I'm unhealthy -- but it's not my fault, and one of these things could make quite a difference.
Actually, you forget a hidden cost of downloading: cost of electricity.
.)
Running my computer that hard for that much time each month was at least an added 10$ to my electricity bill, probably more like 15 or 20. At that point, netflix is break even on cost and much, much less hassle.
(And since the dvd-rs I got early on turned out to be coaster material in 6 months whether they had data on them or not, I in fact don't have any of the stuff I got from those days . . . which is a shame because I never got around to watching any of it . .
Only three modded up posts and 21 minutes until Godwin's Law was shown to be true. A new slashdot record!
Basically, avoid the word 'free'. As soon as free is the top selling point of anything, it isn't. Its either spyware, or upsell.
:)
So you're saying to avoid:
Firefox, Openoffice.org, the Linux kernel, gaim, xpdf, pine, mythtv and emacs?
So much for trusting any program I ever use. (Well, if you add in gtali
Actually, he was making a subtle joke: less is more.
Not only did I see that, I then wondered "I wonder what would happen if someone played '... of Doom!' on it" . . . my best guess? A wandering 7 year lich would show up. Conveniently, it's dead!
Doesn't the POSTER even RTFA these days? This bill cleared the committee. In fact, there's a line in the article which states:
"The bill now moves fo the House floor for consideration."
Not that it's impossible it will pass anyway, but please guys, get it right. It's not that hard.
You seem to be lacking an understanding in fundamental logic:
"Not all laws are right" does not entail "All laws are not right".
The parent was saying "Not all laws are right." You interpreted it as "All laws are not right."
Put another way: Parent said "Some laws are wrong." It does not follow that "All laws are wrong."
We just need to figure out which are the good laws. And get rid of the bad laws. And nobody is saying this is particularly easy.
You can email her:
http://www.ci.newton.ma.us/Library/email.htm
Or call her at: (617) 796-1360
and exprss those sentiments in person. I just did.
and an icy cold Coca-Cola
I'm surprised that after reading all the comments nobody has said anything about soda. Calories from soda are huge. A 2L bottle of soda runs about 2000 calories. If you have your main liquid consumption from soda you're probably drinking about 2 of these a week.
Switch over to water (0 calories), and you'll drop 4000 calories/week out of your diet instantly. That's almost 600 calories a day. It will make a difference. Get a Brita if you can't stand the taste of tap water, buy bottled water if you must spend money on your beverages.
But don't complain to me about being fat and then go grab the Big Gulp of Coke. You won't get any sympathy here.