Verizon is laying the fiber along other people's property. It has the right to do this by virtue of government action: easements (rights to use someone else's land in a particular way) granted by way of or under threat of eminent domain (government-imposed surrender of property rights). Verizon (or Bell, long ago) used a special relationship with the government to get what it has, and so does not have the right to use it in an unregulated fashion.
Removing controls from large companies while letting them keep their special government-granted advantages does not create a free market. Free-market advocates who fail to understand this create broken economic systems when they succeed and give us all a bad name even if they don't. Please don't be one of them.
I looked this stuff up, and what people seem to be saying (I don't see any primary sources other than Mr. Weber) is that there was an agency that was selling babies, and that agency attempted to reduce the competition by siccing the INS on the other agencies, resulting in a long hold on adoptions during which Jolie managed to get her baby by doing business with the baby-selling agency. So not like you wrote, but still sleazy.
...at least at this stage. Presumably the positives will be sent into a lab for further, more expensive testing, so nobody's going to be falsely told they have cancer. False negatives would be much worse, since some cancers would be missed.
Anyway, it seems likely that careful selection and training of dogs can get much better results.
Demonstrating that a malicious person can make errors that are not caught within a few days is a long, long way from demonstrating that there are substantially more errors than a paper encyclopedia. And since when is a paper encyclopedia supposed to be authoritative? Maybe for sixth-grade reports, but...
What mythical implementation is that? A common online chess applet can crash most of the JVMs I've tried it with. When I see "jsp" in a URL, I twitch uncontrollably. "Slow" and "flaky" are good words, but they don't nearly convey the necessary intensity.
I write software in decent high-level languages like Ruby and Perl all the time. It's not bug-free, but it never crashes the goddamn interpreter and if it's slow it's because I wrote it wrong.
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Invasion ain't "peaceful means", and that wasn't an authorized enforcement action. The UN Charter is a treaty, fully ratified, and therefore just under the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. But hey, this is a nation of men, not laws, right?
...but only if it's moving horizontally.
on
X43-A on to Mach 10
·
· Score: 1
The energy radiated by a blackbody is proportional to the fourth power of temperature. But since there's a probably whole lot of convection going on, cooling is probably more a matter of moving the heat from the front of the thing to the back, and the naive idea of how things work is probably not too useful.
Yes, a reasonably well-informed and thoughtful person should compute that. No, they're not going to bother in the course of that sentence, but having a sense of scale is relevant, so a good writer will tell them.
I waste my time on Slashdot; Slashdot does not waste my time for me. Spammers knowingly fill my mailbox with crap against my will, so I must either spend time filtering through the spam or just throw away all my mail.
...only works when the conclusion is absurd. The conclusion about traffic jams adding up to many deaths is pretty much the same as the conclusion about spam, and to assume it to be absurd would be begging the question.
The key questions here are:
* If a large amount of harm is spread out among many people so that the harm to any individual is tiny, is the harmful act less harmful than if the harm were not spread? (I would say unequivocally "no".)
* Does consuming an amount of time equal to a human life equal murder? (I would say that this is an interesting and unresolved question, but I lean toward "yes".)
Weighing traffic jams against deaths is not just a joke; it's a realistic problem that civil engineers quite likely have to deal with often in the real world. If you can design a system that will save one life at the cost of thousands of man-years of time, is it worth it? Well, you assign some value to time and some value to life and see how it adds up.
There is a definite human cost to spamming. Spamming a million people is definitely worse than spamming one person. To understand how bad spamming is, you have to compute the harm done somehow; and if addition is not the right method, what is?
Quick ethics quiz: if I send out a thousand spams, each of which reaches ten million people and wastes ten seconds of their lives (between deleting and earning the money to pay the marginal cost of services to deal with my shit), I've wasted over three thousand man-years of other people's time. Given that the average human lifespan is on the order of 100 years, am I
(a) better than, (b) worse than, or (c) about the same as
someone who murders 30 people?
Please explain your answer in a detailed but concise fashion.
Make it optional. Use sequential unique names and an empty comment so that there's transparent unlimited "undo of save", and let the user hit an alternate key if they want to do formal revision control, which would allow comments, branching, and so on. Emacs can do something like this: you can switch on unlimited backups of the form foo~n, and engage vc-mode when you want to do the real thing.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't, it'll sneak out at night and put undercarriage lights on your car.
Like Lyndon Johnson said, it's doesn't have to be true; it's enough to make the poor bastard deny it.
Verizon is laying the fiber along other people's property. It has the right to do this by virtue of government action: easements (rights to use someone else's land in a particular way) granted by way of or under threat of eminent domain (government-imposed surrender of property rights). Verizon (or Bell, long ago) used a special relationship with the government to get what it has, and so does not have the right to use it in an unregulated fashion.
Removing controls from large companies while letting them keep their special government-granted advantages does not create a free market. Free-market advocates who fail to understand this create broken economic systems when they succeed and give us all a bad name even if they don't. Please don't be one of them.
I looked this stuff up, and what people seem to be saying (I don't see any primary sources other than Mr. Weber) is that there was an agency that was selling babies, and that agency attempted to reduce the competition by siccing the INS on the other agencies, resulting in a long hold on adoptions during which Jolie managed to get her baby by doing business with the baby-selling agency. So not like you wrote, but still sleazy.
..."Sky Captain" for no reason.
...at least at this stage. Presumably the positives will be sent into a lab for further, more expensive testing, so nobody's going to be falsely told they have cancer. False negatives would be much worse, since some cancers would be missed. Anyway, it seems likely that careful selection and training of dogs can get much better results.
...just using the usual interface, with output to a screen instead of just a strip of special paper.
Be a shame to have to lug whole carcasses around.
Demonstrating that a malicious person can make errors that are not caught within a few days is a long, long way from demonstrating that there are substantially more errors than a paper encyclopedia. And since when is a paper encyclopedia supposed to be authoritative? Maybe for sixth-grade reports, but...
Just disable it. You can do this with a single call to the phone company. Sending false information is lame.
What mythical implementation is that? A common online chess applet can crash most of the JVMs I've tried it with. When I see "jsp" in a URL, I twitch uncontrollably. "Slow" and "flaky" are good words, but they don't nearly convey the necessary intensity.
I write software in decent high-level languages like Ruby and Perl all the time. It's not bug-free, but it never crashes the goddamn interpreter and if it's slow it's because I wrote it wrong.
Who does eBay serve better? Sellers. A curious coincidence, that.
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. Invasion ain't "peaceful means", and that wasn't an authorized enforcement action. The UN Charter is a treaty, fully ratified, and therefore just under the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. But hey, this is a nation of men, not laws, right?
You learn something new every day.
The energy radiated by a blackbody is proportional to the fourth power of temperature. But since there's a probably whole lot of convection going on, cooling is probably more a matter of moving the heat from the front of the thing to the back, and the naive idea of how things work is probably not too useful.
Yes, a reasonably well-informed and thoughtful person should compute that. No, they're not going to bother in the course of that sentence, but having a sense of scale is relevant, so a good writer will tell them.
when you were penising her last night? Coward elsewhere.
Hope this helps.
I waste my time on Slashdot; Slashdot does not waste my time for me. Spammers knowingly fill my mailbox with crap against my will, so I must either spend time filtering through the spam or just throw away all my mail.
But otherwise I am prepared to accept that conclusion. ;)
...only works when the conclusion is absurd. The conclusion about traffic jams adding up to many deaths is pretty much the same as the conclusion about spam, and to assume it to be absurd would be begging the question.
The key questions here are:
* If a large amount of harm is spread out among many people so that the harm to any individual is tiny, is the harmful act less harmful than if the harm were not spread? (I would say unequivocally "no".)
* Does consuming an amount of time equal to a human life equal murder? (I would say that this is an interesting and unresolved question, but I lean toward "yes".)
Weighing traffic jams against deaths is not just a joke; it's a realistic problem that civil engineers quite likely have to deal with often in the real world. If you can design a system that will save one life at the cost of thousands of man-years of time, is it worth it? Well, you assign some value to time and some value to life and see how it adds up.
There is a definite human cost to spamming. Spamming a million people is definitely worse than spamming one person. To understand how bad spamming is, you have to compute the harm done somehow; and if addition is not the right method, what is?
Quick ethics quiz: if I send out a thousand spams, each of which reaches ten million people and wastes ten seconds of their lives (between deleting and earning the money to pay the marginal cost of services to deal with my shit), I've wasted over three thousand man-years of other people's time. Given that the average human lifespan is on the order of 100 years, am I
(a) better than,
(b) worse than, or
(c) about the same as
someone who murders 30 people?
Please explain your answer in a detailed but concise fashion.
That's the cross-sectional area of a cylindrical gas tank sufficient for you to drive one meter on a one-meter-high load of gas.
HTH.
Laying is spelled just fine. It's the wrong word, unless you speak Country.
Make it optional. Use sequential unique names and an empty comment so that there's transparent unlimited "undo of save", and let the user hit an alternate key if they want to do formal revision control, which would allow comments, branching, and so on. Emacs can do something like this: you can switch on unlimited backups of the form foo~n, and engage vc-mode when you want to do the real thing.