Are you saying that the " CEOs of companies, deans of universities, directors of hospitals, they were all in on it" - but now they are the subjects of mind control? Or that somehow once a result becomes desirable, that the behavior of the C-suite and board of executives are being mind controlled to produce that desired result? I can't think of one reason for you mentioning it that isn't absolutely raving shit-eating lunacy.
I was probably reading about that before you were born. Oh yes, since well before the eternal September. That and many other things just exactly like it. My knowledge pre-dated my post, and I stand by it. Do you have another counter argument lined up, or just more unrelated references?
And it doesn't change my opinion, even knowing that these things are not just some nutjob's fantasy, but have actually been declassified and largely match any but the craziest reports.
But, you won't be convinced using logic since you have already decided what the truth is. Are you sure your mind isn't being controlled?
Racism is one thing. Blindly favoring skin color over any other attribute is clearly irrational, and a negative to society as otherwise qualified people go ignored. Violence, based on legal or illegal differentiation, is no good for anyone.
I can hate blacks or whites or any color passively and have no impact. Any increasing degree actively hurts my own society.
How you define racism is how you interpret, and respond to,this post. Thought crime is such a narrow definition that should you choose it, you face attacks from many sides. And should be ashamed of your ignorance.
But, if their viewpoint has no basis in fact, and is fed by ignorance, and is in every provable way either stupid or misinformed, do we not improve society in some way by preventing their speech?
Jenny McCarthy, who threatened herd immunity, should we not stop her hate speech?
Global warming deniers, do they not pose a threat to the entire earth?
Am I not more civilized, for having recognized dispassionately which side is obviously correct, and silencing opponents of either truth or rationality?
The moment one proves the existence of the teapot, it becomes science and fact, not religion and faith.
That is where the scientific types get tangled up when discussing faith - logic and reason will never convince a believer not to believe. It is pointless to do anything other than realize these are two different knowledge domains.
If one believes in religion, one also believes in the importance of believing, especially in the face of contradictory information. Science, logic, and reason are either obstacles to surmount, or things worse down the same path. The more sense they make, the stronger they must be resisted.
To answer for GP post - there are many weaknesses in the human mind which *require* the belief in something more powerful and more compassionate, more perfect, more loving, and especially more understanding, than we are. To somehow hold that deaths in floods and earthquakes is something other than random noise in the human population - that whole cities and even civilizations destroyed has some part in a master plan.
The allure of nihilism is weak at best, and the explanation that in a few million years everything you ever stood for and believed in will not matter is abhorrent to most.
Yes, there is a need to believe in a deity, built in. And that will trump knowledge any day of the week, for most.
For simplicity, explain either the patriarchal or matriarchal society, which holds that what you do in life affects your descendants, and what your ancestors did affects you. Your name, possibly occupation, certainly race and religion, and unless you have resources your geography. The urge to pass down the family name, the euphemism of "the family jewels". Oh yes, we are hard-wired to need something that science has not yet given us, and faith and superstition fill that void.
"Such things" refers to "open source and mechanisms on the web to store and access data", which, unless I'm shit-eatingly retarded, means the specific things they needed to implement this.
The initial release of Azure was 3 years ago, and AWS was a novelty until just a bit before then. Neither one would have been even considered as a web storage solution two and a half years ago. And "open source" very specifically means things that would take certain inputs and give certain outputs, which if I were to guess still do not exist in the form that is required.
I'm not disagreeing - I'm expounding to explain why I read with NoScript, RequestPolicy, and others enabled so I can't see ads. I close my browser, deleting cookies (yes even super cookies) between posts. I have an ISP with IP pooling so I can't be easily tracked for more than an hour or so. I do this because fuck you, Dice.
I choose not to read ComputerWorld. But when a news aggregator decides I should be informed, the message better be crystal fucking clear. The author might be a blithering, window licking retard, but Soulskill decided to post it here.
I may start a blog about all the things I smeared fecal matter on, and whose fecal matter it was, and submit stories titled "things open source cannot stop" and "what's wrong with Ubuntu" and "as a proprietary coder I explain why everything I produce is shite". I would get front page stories without a blink.
This is one class we're talking about here. Not a course of maths of which trig is one. Not a course of English of which poetry is one. This is a single course in which kids can effectively try programming.
In every Code.org thread, people say you can't just make kids like programming, they just need the chance to learn. Given exposure, they can decide if they like it or not.
This is the opposite of the "make everyone a coder" mantra. I took maths, I'm not a mathematician. Out of every course in school, ever, I do not do that as my livelihood. I had the opportunity, and learned skills from each, but decided against all of them. As most will do against programming even as a hobby.
There is no reason to object to this on any ground. Most people don't get maths, and will tell you "I am bad at maths". But we force them to take multi-year tracks because it's good for them. Speech, music, art, - we usually force exposure to one class of various courses of study. Yes, even "graded recess". The only argument is whether this belongs at the university level or grade school, and I see no reason to wait until after they have chosen their major (which they may change, but probably not to comp sci statistically speaking).
Zuckerburg will get the army of people he wants who resent having taking Mr. Brand's programming course. FSF adherents will get the "I can write code so it should be free" hippies. High school students will get exposure to something fundamental to everyone's daily lives (including televisions, microwaves, cars, iPods, and yes even texting).
The worst thing about this is exactly the point you make - because if they learn BASIC they will make a "database" full of VBA that eventually breaks and requires one of us to re-implement it sanely while importing years of legacy data that can't break.
DO NOT teach Excel to people who can't program. Think about that and realize you don't want that ever. Not even for job security.
It's never truly as obvious until you have this conversation:
1: "They should pay us more." 2: "If so, this [plant|office|shop] will close" 1: "But we're worth more than [X/hr.]" 2: "So quit" 1: "Can't, this is the best job around" 2: "Then be happy you have it" 1: "Just greedy CEO corporate whores screwing us every chance they get" 2: "Then start your own business" 1: "I can't quit, I need the money"
The moment disillusionment kicks in, it is the cause of all that is wrong. The only reason business does anything is to piss on entry level workers. The only reason laws are passed are to further the goals of the party in charge. Bad decisions are malicious.
Just when people are on the verge of that critical thinking barrier, they see the man behind the curtain, assume that's all there ever was, and forget all of the social dynamics and people and the whole world in which the yellow brick road exists. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain indeed, but critical thinking requires you to forget the giant floating head as well, and remember the magic that exists right outside the door.
While we are on the subject - a girl kills your sister and steals her shoes, and a wizard sends the same girl to kill you. Her comrades kill or stop everything you send to stop them. Who is the real evil here?
Critical thinking requires that someone hold both sides, at least long enough to make a determination without relying on words like "good" and "wicked". To distrust the source as biased.
The challenge is to have the one teacher, at just the right time, bridge the gap between "trust me I'm a teacher" and "decide for yourself". Too late, and the authoritarian is born. Too early and the anarchist is born. And there is no right moment for any group; individuals will hit this at different times.
That is the only point where I take issue with tlambert - formal logic itself belongs in college, but that switch will flip when it wants, and will not do so on anyone's timetable.
As long as we are refining, "the Satan or devil of the Bible" still has a great many interpretations from the general "obstacle" to the guy that rules hell and takes souls.
It is enlightening to show people how much of what they "know" exists in the Bible (Septuagint, Torah, etc.) actually doesn't. Even more interesting to see how much people who memorize the Qur'an (a veritable past-time in some areas) understand vs. can recite.
Case in point just about any Bible-thumper who can recite chapter and verse on any topic they feel passionate about, but can't put it into any context that demonstrates what the quotation was trying to preach.
Religious adherents tend to forget the details when they like the quote, and invent whole ideas around single words. And Satan becomes the anthropomorphic embodiment of everything that we, personally, abhor.
Point being of course, it is hard to nail down what Satan is, or isn't, by pointing to anything.
Applying logic, consideration, or really thought to scripture is a fundamental failure. Either you believe or you don't, and you can't argue logic against faith. They are completely different domains, and engage different parts of the brain depending on which one you follow.
Since you want to argue logic, the prohibitions against killing, lying, stealing, and adultery are pretty good foundations for a social structure, as are the prescriptions for preservation of familial ties.
Since the subject here is Christianity, they can be distilled into "love they neighbor" and "love thy God" which are hardly objectionable, considering a believer already believes.
Now the point was about "the furtherance of public good, rule of law, etc." Regardless of my beliefs, I have objectively demonstrated that "The Ten Commandments in some degree agrees with that, and definitely does not come into opposition to that" as was stated.
You can't covet because God said. If you don't take the word of God as law, then you can at least understand that avoiding temptation and the resulting social unease that can follow (especially children born at calculably impossible times) may be generally for the greater good.
Personally I think these cretins can sod off and get pissed, but I'm willing to state my personal opinion rather than hide behind ineffectual logic and overgeneralities.
What people are trying to achieve is to make them realize that the constitution requires separation of church and state, and that applies to their religion also.
People who don't understand that these are exactly the same thing are terrible people. It doesn't matter which side you are on, you are still a terrible person.
Why? You believe you are right.
That sort of selfishness is exactly what the pro-Christian monument crowd believe. That it's okay because they are right, and satanists are obviously a reactionary group against anything pro-Christian.
Your admonishment not to wave religion around in public is not very first-amendment of you, and it is very selfish because freedom of religion, of congregation, and of speech allows people to do just exactly that.
Am I wrong? Do you want to change my mind? I have not come close to dis-respecting any law, actually I am further away from that breach than you are. Is it still about forcing people to respect the law? Or do you really already have an opinion and want facts to reflect your side?
Here's a huge cluebat: If they allow the Satanist monument, and all that are offered, they are still "shoving religion down peoples' throats." They are just at that point doing it equally and with no hint of infringing on freedom.
About religions (and penises) - they each drive the owner to share it with as many people as possible. Social constructs inhibit both, but as long as the sharing is legal you are free to be offended but not free to actively prevent it.
You must accept the request of the Satanists, and if accepted you must accept the Christian monument, and all those that are offered, as we have given up our right to make decisions as long as those that are made for us follow the law of the land.
When the answer seems obvious, it's almost always wrong. More specifically, the words "Why not just..." should never be typed or said, because there is probably a good reason why not.
In this case, you have two options: publish in a reputable journal, or make it available elsewhere. For many reasons, lots of people choose the first. Then the choice is turn over all rights, or not. To be published, the "standard" form includes giving up those rights. They already decided to publish, so the decision to sign the form was made - probably as part of the submission process on condition of being accepted.
A simple solution would not resolve the complex issues of judging a paper's impact, awarding tenure, and piles of other aspects that are only mildly related to choosing where to publish, but are greatly impacted by it.
Have a backlog, so you can prove what isn't getting done. And it is a list of what the newbie would do, tomorrow. When priorities change, record that.
Basically everything in the summary needs to have backing data, or it fails. Most every other recommendation will create animosity, so even if you win you lose. Prepare for questions like, out of that backlog, how many will never get done, or are no longer needed?
Multiply by the number of readers and it becomes a waste of time quickly. Since it is unknown, we may not know if this is related to tape specifically, rotating things in general, or just field slang. Much time and text is wasted on domain specific jargon, and it helps to reiterate and keep the info where it can be read inline. I imagined what it might be and would have moved on except for your unhelpful chastising.
It took 5 years, including an epiphany while looking at their Vermeers in Amsterdam, to come up with that. And lgw (121541) came up with it within 3 hours of the story posting.
We're going to need help reverse engineering the tech that lgw used to post that comment.
There is a huge gap between stealing personal information, and using electricity. Most people do not have anything other than the basic, integrated GPU that comes with commodity boxes. The amount of electricity stolen is nowhere near the typical mining expenditure.
We need lines to be able to classify and differentiate, and your personal emotional response really doesn't help.
I'm sure you misunderstand how this tax thing works. You could "write it off" as in you will never see the money, but "write it off as a loss" makes no sense. The $116 is the negotiated rate, which the insurance company can demand as a result of : 1) referring patients (via listing who accepts the insurance) 2) buying in bulk Since the rate is negotiated, the $167 is the expected price, not a loss. I really doubt this helps anyone financially.
If I get a $400 charge, and owe $42 after insurance pays, wouldn't it be to their advantage, if things are as you say, to write it off rather than call me and mail me bills?
I'm not going to go research it, but it doesn't make sense at all.
State Farm, which is one of the largest insurance companies, took in $33B in premiums, and paid out $21B. With fees and such (including I assume paying people), they lost $1.5B in 2012. How do they make money? They take your premiums, $114B currently, and invest it.
Economics is rarely simple. They employ people, and buy bonds, and pay taxes (look at the report). I agree with your premise, that this was not done correctly, but you made your point so horribly that you actually convinced me you're wrong.
As for why it was implemented the way it was, well politics is rarely simple either.
This is for business, not individuals. Business requires what Outlook offers because they grew up together. If its not easier to use for business it won't be used. Individual preference and migration inertia are irrelevant. And its not just email. Calendars, ooo replies, org charts, room reservations, and more.
The base data is correlated with external data sources at all times. While signing up, it is important to keep obtained data together. And keeping a record of who signed up certainly needs to be logged.
But I can't see, given all of the external data sources, any requirement to make this a traditional RDBMS. ACID yes, but the vendor claims it is.
The exchange is just a place to match up customers, plans, and subsidies. The actual transaction happens between the customer and insurance company, which is where RDBMS makes sense. Being the intermediate holding place, NoSQL is not an inappropriate choice here. Not saying MarkLogic is a good choice, but I do not see anything pointing one way or another for the intermediary.
You don't even need a list of 300 million people - the source datasets (IRS and Experian primarily) house that information.
You would have a point, if anything about this gave anyone self-sustainment.
HHS Secretary Sebelius took the arrow for Obama, saying he didn't know (and she did) that it would fail. That's one Democrat ex-Governor with a giant black mark.
Obama might not care because he's a lame duck. But this is a major act that Republicans did not want, and they will use this failure to gain voters in the next 3 federal elections at least.
The main contractor has a huge black mark, despite being given concrete (and ever changing) requirements to use specific technologies. They were asked to manage, but not given power to manage, subcontractors.
There is quite literally no one in this mess who comes out better than before. At least, I can't think of one. Unless you think that the Democrats in general took one for the team so the Republicans could take over, keeping the two party system in power. To make anything good out of this would require such broad, long-term planning that it would be impossible to believe. I'm going to need some more specifics from your hazy conspiracy theories, and by God if you don't include at least one reference to the Illuminati, Skull and Bones, Lizard People, or Dan Brown, I will find you and punch your silly little nose.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you saying that the " CEOs of companies, deans of universities, directors of hospitals, they were all in on it" - but now they are the subjects of mind control? Or that somehow once a result becomes desirable, that the behavior of the C-suite and board of executives are being mind controlled to produce that desired result? I can't think of one reason for you mentioning it that isn't absolutely raving shit-eating lunacy.
I was probably reading about that before you were born. Oh yes, since well before the eternal September. That and many other things just exactly like it. My knowledge pre-dated my post, and I stand by it. Do you have another counter argument lined up, or just more unrelated references?
And it doesn't change my opinion, even knowing that these things are not just some nutjob's fantasy, but have actually been declassified and largely match any but the craziest reports.
But, you won't be convinced using logic since you have already decided what the truth is. Are you sure your mind isn't being controlled?
And to clarify, they would have been fine with participation. Only the effect on stock price is in question.
The NSA actions, IBM actions, none of that is part of this.
Failure to disclose risks to revenue, and major ones at that, is serious for public companies.
Lavabit was a mom and pop store. Your paranoia does not extend to established business, which have the option to fight back but choose not to.
IBM would have survived saying no. They would have had an enormous expense in doing so.
I hate climate change deniers.
I hate the anti-vac crowd.
I hate the anti-evolution textbook choosers.
I hate the Nazis.
I hate terrorists.
I hate the consolidation of wealth
I hate dark chocolate the most. But the rest of these ate bad too.
Mobile browsers would be at the top, but I can't put the caret where I need to.
Racism is one thing.
Blindly favoring skin color over any other attribute is clearly irrational, and a negative to society as otherwise qualified people go ignored.
Violence, based on legal or illegal differentiation, is no good for anyone.
I can hate blacks or whites or any color passively and have no impact. Any increasing degree actively hurts my own society.
How you define racism is how you interpret, and respond to,this post. Thought crime is such a narrow definition that should you choose it, you face attacks from many sides. And should be ashamed of your ignorance.
But, if their viewpoint has no basis in fact, and is fed by ignorance, and is in every provable way either stupid or misinformed, do we not improve society in some way by preventing their speech?
Jenny McCarthy, who threatened herd immunity, should we not stop her hate speech?
Global warming deniers, do they not pose a threat to the entire earth?
Am I not more civilized, for having recognized dispassionately which side is obviously correct, and silencing opponents of either truth or rationality?
Have we no obligation to take sides?
The moment one proves the existence of the teapot, it becomes science and fact, not religion and faith.
That is where the scientific types get tangled up when discussing faith - logic and reason will never convince a believer not to believe. It is pointless to do anything other than realize these are two different knowledge domains.
If one believes in religion, one also believes in the importance of believing, especially in the face of contradictory information. Science, logic, and reason are either obstacles to surmount, or things worse down the same path. The more sense they make, the stronger they must be resisted.
To answer for GP post - there are many weaknesses in the human mind which *require* the belief in something more powerful and more compassionate, more perfect, more loving, and especially more understanding, than we are. To somehow hold that deaths in floods and earthquakes is something other than random noise in the human population - that whole cities and even civilizations destroyed has some part in a master plan.
The allure of nihilism is weak at best, and the explanation that in a few million years everything you ever stood for and believed in will not matter is abhorrent to most.
Yes, there is a need to believe in a deity, built in. And that will trump knowledge any day of the week, for most.
For simplicity, explain either the patriarchal or matriarchal society, which holds that what you do in life affects your descendants, and what your ancestors did affects you. Your name, possibly occupation, certainly race and religion, and unless you have resources your geography. The urge to pass down the family name, the euphemism of "the family jewels". Oh yes, we are hard-wired to need something that science has not yet given us, and faith and superstition fill that void.
Soulskill.
"Such things" refers to "open source and mechanisms on the web to store and access data", which, unless I'm shit-eatingly retarded, means the specific things they needed to implement this.
The initial release of Azure was 3 years ago, and AWS was a novelty until just a bit before then. Neither one would have been even considered as a web storage solution two and a half years ago. And "open source" very specifically means things that would take certain inputs and give certain outputs, which if I were to guess still do not exist in the form that is required.
I'm not disagreeing - I'm expounding to explain why I read with NoScript, RequestPolicy, and others enabled so I can't see ads. I close my browser, deleting cookies (yes even super cookies) between posts. I have an ISP with IP pooling so I can't be easily tracked for more than an hour or so. I do this because fuck you, Dice.
I choose not to read ComputerWorld. But when a news aggregator decides I should be informed, the message better be crystal fucking clear. The author might be a blithering, window licking retard, but Soulskill decided to post it here.
I may start a blog about all the things I smeared fecal matter on, and whose fecal matter it was, and submit stories titled "things open source cannot stop" and "what's wrong with Ubuntu" and "as a proprietary coder I explain why everything I produce is shite". I would get front page stories without a blink.
This is one class we're talking about here. Not a course of maths of which trig is one. Not a course of English of which poetry is one. This is a single course in which kids can effectively try programming.
In every Code.org thread, people say you can't just make kids like programming, they just need the chance to learn. Given exposure, they can decide if they like it or not.
This is the opposite of the "make everyone a coder" mantra. I took maths, I'm not a mathematician. Out of every course in school, ever, I do not do that as my livelihood. I had the opportunity, and learned skills from each, but decided against all of them. As most will do against programming even as a hobby.
There is no reason to object to this on any ground. Most people don't get maths, and will tell you "I am bad at maths". But we force them to take multi-year tracks because it's good for them. Speech, music, art, - we usually force exposure to one class of various courses of study. Yes, even "graded recess". The only argument is whether this belongs at the university level or grade school, and I see no reason to wait until after they have chosen their major (which they may change, but probably not to comp sci statistically speaking).
Zuckerburg will get the army of people he wants who resent having taking Mr. Brand's programming course. FSF adherents will get the "I can write code so it should be free" hippies. High school students will get exposure to something fundamental to everyone's daily lives (including televisions, microwaves, cars, iPods, and yes even texting).
The worst thing about this is exactly the point you make - because if they learn BASIC they will make a "database" full of VBA that eventually breaks and requires one of us to re-implement it sanely while importing years of legacy data that can't break.
DO NOT teach Excel to people who can't program. Think about that and realize you don't want that ever. Not even for job security.
It's never truly as obvious until you have this conversation:
1: "They should pay us more."
2: "If so, this [plant|office|shop] will close"
1: "But we're worth more than [X/hr.]"
2: "So quit"
1: "Can't, this is the best job around"
2: "Then be happy you have it"
1: "Just greedy CEO corporate whores screwing us every chance they get"
2: "Then start your own business"
1: "I can't quit, I need the money"
The moment disillusionment kicks in, it is the cause of all that is wrong. The only reason business does anything is to piss on entry level workers. The only reason laws are passed are to further the goals of the party in charge. Bad decisions are malicious.
Just when people are on the verge of that critical thinking barrier, they see the man behind the curtain, assume that's all there ever was, and forget all of the social dynamics and people and the whole world in which the yellow brick road exists. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain indeed, but critical thinking requires you to forget the giant floating head as well, and remember the magic that exists right outside the door.
While we are on the subject - a girl kills your sister and steals her shoes, and a wizard sends the same girl to kill you. Her comrades kill or stop everything you send to stop them. Who is the real evil here?
Critical thinking requires that someone hold both sides, at least long enough to make a determination without relying on words like "good" and "wicked". To distrust the source as biased.
The challenge is to have the one teacher, at just the right time, bridge the gap between "trust me I'm a teacher" and "decide for yourself". Too late, and the authoritarian is born. Too early and the anarchist is born. And there is no right moment for any group; individuals will hit this at different times.
That is the only point where I take issue with tlambert - formal logic itself belongs in college, but that switch will flip when it wants, and will not do so on anyone's timetable.
As long as we are refining, "the Satan or devil of the Bible" still has a great many interpretations from the general "obstacle" to the guy that rules hell and takes souls.
It is enlightening to show people how much of what they "know" exists in the Bible (Septuagint, Torah, etc.) actually doesn't. Even more interesting to see how much people who memorize the Qur'an (a veritable past-time in some areas) understand vs. can recite.
Case in point just about any Bible-thumper who can recite chapter and verse on any topic they feel passionate about, but can't put it into any context that demonstrates what the quotation was trying to preach.
Religious adherents tend to forget the details when they like the quote, and invent whole ideas around single words. And Satan becomes the anthropomorphic embodiment of everything that we, personally, abhor.
Point being of course, it is hard to nail down what Satan is, or isn't, by pointing to anything.
Applying logic, consideration, or really thought to scripture is a fundamental failure. Either you believe or you don't, and you can't argue logic against faith. They are completely different domains, and engage different parts of the brain depending on which one you follow.
Since you want to argue logic, the prohibitions against killing, lying, stealing, and adultery are pretty good foundations for a social structure, as are the prescriptions for preservation of familial ties.
Since the subject here is Christianity, they can be distilled into "love they neighbor" and "love thy God" which are hardly objectionable, considering a believer already believes.
Now the point was about "the furtherance of public good, rule of law, etc." Regardless of my beliefs, I have objectively demonstrated that "The Ten Commandments in some degree agrees with that, and definitely does not come into opposition to that" as was stated.
You can't covet because God said. If you don't take the word of God as law, then you can at least understand that avoiding temptation and the resulting social unease that can follow (especially children born at calculably impossible times) may be generally for the greater good.
Personally I think these cretins can sod off and get pissed, but I'm willing to state my personal opinion rather than hide behind ineffectual logic and overgeneralities.
People who don't understand that these are exactly the same thing are terrible people. It doesn't matter which side you are on, you are still a terrible person.
Why? You believe you are right.
That sort of selfishness is exactly what the pro-Christian monument crowd believe. That it's okay because they are right, and satanists are obviously a reactionary group against anything pro-Christian.
Your admonishment not to wave religion around in public is not very first-amendment of you, and it is very selfish because freedom of religion, of congregation, and of speech allows people to do just exactly that.
Am I wrong? Do you want to change my mind? I have not come close to dis-respecting any law, actually I am further away from that breach than you are. Is it still about forcing people to respect the law? Or do you really already have an opinion and want facts to reflect your side?
Here's a huge cluebat: If they allow the Satanist monument, and all that are offered, they are still "shoving religion down peoples' throats." They are just at that point doing it equally and with no hint of infringing on freedom.
About religions (and penises) - they each drive the owner to share it with as many people as possible. Social constructs inhibit both, but as long as the sharing is legal you are free to be offended but not free to actively prevent it.
You must accept the request of the Satanists, and if accepted you must accept the Christian monument, and all those that are offered, as we have given up our right to make decisions as long as those that are made for us follow the law of the land.
It would be stranger if they did have something like it, considering how different they are.
The short version of BattleApple's post above is "because fluid dynamics". Other gas giants do not have the same wind pattern gradients.
The opposite of strange - rather expected, actually.
When the answer seems obvious, it's almost always wrong. More specifically, the words "Why not just..." should never be typed or said, because there is probably a good reason why not.
In this case, you have two options: publish in a reputable journal, or make it available elsewhere. For many reasons, lots of people choose the first. Then the choice is turn over all rights, or not. To be published, the "standard" form includes giving up those rights. They already decided to publish, so the decision to sign the form was made - probably as part of the submission process on condition of being accepted.
A simple solution would not resolve the complex issues of judging a paper's impact, awarding tenure, and piles of other aspects that are only mildly related to choosing where to publish, but are greatly impacted by it.
Too many words, not enough numbers.
Have a backlog, so you can prove what isn't getting done. And it is a list of what the newbie would do, tomorrow. When priorities change, record that.
Basically everything in the summary needs to have backing data, or it fails. Most every other recommendation will create animosity, so even if you win you lose. Prepare for questions like, out of that backlog, how many will never get done, or are no longer needed?
Multiply by the number of readers and it becomes a waste of time quickly. Since it is unknown, we may not know if this is related to tape specifically, rotating things in general, or just field slang.
Much time and text is wasted on domain specific jargon, and it helps to reiterate and keep the info where it can be read inline.
I imagined what it might be and would have moved on except for your unhelpful chastising.
It took 5 years, including an epiphany while looking at their Vermeers in Amsterdam, to come up with that. And lgw (121541) came up with it within 3 hours of the story posting.
We're going to need help reverse engineering the tech that lgw used to post that comment.
There is a huge gap between stealing personal information, and using electricity. Most people do not have anything other than the basic, integrated GPU that comes with commodity boxes. The amount of electricity stolen is nowhere near the typical mining expenditure.
We need lines to be able to classify and differentiate, and your personal emotional response really doesn't help.
Awesome. Now I can mine bitcoins while reading about people mining bitcoins.
I'm sure you misunderstand how this tax thing works. You could "write it off" as in you will never see the money, but "write it off as a loss" makes no sense. The $116 is the negotiated rate, which the insurance company can demand as a result of :
1) referring patients (via listing who accepts the insurance)
2) buying in bulk
Since the rate is negotiated, the $167 is the expected price, not a loss. I really doubt this helps anyone financially.
If I get a $400 charge, and owe $42 after insurance pays, wouldn't it be to their advantage, if things are as you say, to write it off rather than call me and mail me bills?
I'm not going to go research it, but it doesn't make sense at all.
State Farm, which is one of the largest insurance companies, took in $33B in premiums, and paid out $21B. With fees and such (including I assume paying people), they lost $1.5B in 2012. How do they make money? They take your premiums, $114B currently, and invest it.
http://www.statefarm.com/aboutus/company/annualreports/annualreports.asp
Economics is rarely simple. They employ people, and buy bonds, and pay taxes (look at the report). I agree with your premise, that this was not done correctly, but you made your point so horribly that you actually convinced me you're wrong.
As for why it was implemented the way it was, well politics is rarely simple either.
This is for business, not individuals. Business requires what Outlook offers because they grew up together. If its not easier to use for business it won't be used. Individual preference and migration inertia are irrelevant.
And its not just email. Calendars, ooo replies, org charts, room reservations, and more.
Rtfs, they are the audience. Corporate version.
The base data is correlated with external data sources at all times. While signing up, it is important to keep obtained data together. And keeping a record of who signed up certainly needs to be logged.
But I can't see, given all of the external data sources, any requirement to make this a traditional RDBMS. ACID yes, but the vendor claims it is.
The exchange is just a place to match up customers, plans, and subsidies. The actual transaction happens between the customer and insurance company, which is where RDBMS makes sense. Being the intermediate holding place, NoSQL is not an inappropriate choice here. Not saying MarkLogic is a good choice, but I do not see anything pointing one way or another for the intermediary.
You don't even need a list of 300 million people - the source datasets (IRS and Experian primarily) house that information.
You would have a point, if anything about this gave anyone self-sustainment.
HHS Secretary Sebelius took the arrow for Obama, saying he didn't know (and she did) that it would fail. That's one Democrat ex-Governor with a giant black mark.
Obama might not care because he's a lame duck. But this is a major act that Republicans did not want, and they will use this failure to gain voters in the next 3 federal elections at least.
The main contractor has a huge black mark, despite being given concrete (and ever changing) requirements to use specific technologies. They were asked to manage, but not given power to manage, subcontractors.
There is quite literally no one in this mess who comes out better than before. At least, I can't think of one. Unless you think that the Democrats in general took one for the team so the Republicans could take over, keeping the two party system in power. To make anything good out of this would require such broad, long-term planning that it would be impossible to believe. I'm going to need some more specifics from your hazy conspiracy theories, and by God if you don't include at least one reference to the Illuminati, Skull and Bones, Lizard People, or Dan Brown, I will find you and punch your silly little nose.