The problem is that people have forgotten the atrocities of the Soviets...all the many atrocities done by the USSR or their puppets are history virtually forgotten since the Berlin Wall fell.
Maybe that's because the Soviets/USSR doesn't exist anymore, and hasn't since 1991. If you think Putin's regime is equivalent to the USSR, then you should probably do a re-fresh of your geo-political perspective.
Instead, the focus is on how evil the US is...
You're right! Instead, let's focus on the past evils of the USSR and ignore the more recent evils of the US. Forget the NSA...KGB! US invasion of Iraq? No no no! Soviet invasion of Afghanistan! Abu Ghraib was nuthin compared to Kolyma, Norilsk, or Vorkuta!!! USA! USA! USA!
Your strategy should really improve the credibility and moral authority of the US in the eyes of the rest of the world going forward. Why didn't someone think of this earlier?!?
What I found most interesting is what the head researcher found interesting:
Physicist Ofer Lahav has some interesting observations in the article about how difficult it is these days for physicists to develop independent points of view on cosmology
In other words: Cambridge (Hawking) Dogma
Ofer Lahav didn't say anything of the sort. What Lahev said was the reason for non-independent viewpoints was "...these days we communicate continuously and too much. Developing independent points of view on cosmology, or indeed other matters, is therefore very difficult." - which has nothing to do with "Cambridge (Hawking) Dogma" (or anybody else's dogma for that matter).
Perhaps you didn't read TFA and simply decided you "knew" what Lahev was referring to just by reading the summary. In other words: you put words in Lahev's mouth to validate your fear of pervasive "ideologically/branding driven pseudo-science". In any case it looks like you have some ax to grind - and given the mods, you're not alone.
The best interest of the shareholders is not always ROI in terms of money. Par example think of continuity which is far more important then short term profits.
Even if ROI was the *only* interest of Apple shareholders, acceding to the NCPPR demand would have likely hurt Apple's share price. Pissing off your customers is not a good recipe for increasing ROI.
Funny how the good folks at the NCPPR didn't demand that Apple stop their philanthropic activities, which by NCPPR logic would also hurt shareholder value. For some reason, they only objected to Apple's "green" initiatives...I wonder why?
Either way, those "think tank" guys should go back to school and learn how capital assets are actually priced. If the NCPPR had gotten their way, it's likely that Apple's stock price would have gone down, not up.
As soon as warranty is up on my 6D I'll try it out.
Unfortunately, Magic Lantern development for the 6D has been pretty spotty. An unofficial release is available; check out this thread for instructions/info. If you don't want to try on your 6D, definitely give it a go on a T2i. It's truly amazing software.
"One of ML's newest features is a module named Dual ISO, which takes advantage of the sensor in some of Canon's high-end cameras (such as the 5D MK II and MK III)"
Nope. Dual ISO works on *most* Canon DSLRs, not just the 5DII/5DIII. More info here. Technical paper from the developer here.
Oh yeah, Magic Lantern is one of the most amazing and useful pieces of software I've ever come across. If you own a Canon DSLR, you owe it to yourself to check it out.
This entire idea that any jobs should be protected is idiotic. If a job doesn't make economic sense it should be eliminated, that's the entire point of progress - eliminating inefficient jobs so that production can become more economical, as in cheaper, thus providing lower prices.
So what would be the proper way to deal with countries that subsidize their workforces? Aren't such countries essentially dumping cheap labor onto the world market? Wouldn't some kind of government action be the only way to effectively address such foul play? Or are you aware of some sort of approach that wouldn't require government intervention?
No, he would also say that there are flaws, such as monopolies, that would also have to be watched and prevented.
Quite true. Didn't mean to imply Smith didn't recognize the flaws in market economies. Too bad the leadership in the US fails to recognize the flaws in so called free markets - particularly in the case of monopolies.
Funny, but I don't see that anywhere. And unless it says that, that page isn't proof of your claim.
I guess you're saying you require proof that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the first law listed listed on that page) applies universally across the US.
I must admit, your demand for proof of something that is so painfully obvious displays a level of ignorance I'm not prepared to address. Congratulations! You got me!
With all respect, I really don't think that page is proof of much of anything. It's all about the law, sure, but there isn't a single word about jurisdiction.
You claimed "federal laws of that nature only apply to businesses that are involved in interstate commerce", which is demonstrably false. The page I linked to lists eight federal laws that apply to *all* US businesses - not just those businesses engaged in interstate commerce. Maybe if you'd read the page a little more thoroughly, you would have realized the invalidity of your original assertion. Better luck next time I guess.
Federal laws of that nature only apply to businesses that are involved in "interstate commerce". There are lots of businesses it simply would not affect.
...but I think businesses should have the freedom to refuse service.
In Arizona, businesses *already* have the ability to refuse service to homosexuals.
This law is one of the last gasps of the "culture war" that the religious right has fought and lost. If Brewer signs it into law (unlikely), it will be quickly challenged in court and declared unconstitutional. That's the real stupidity of the religious nutters pushing through this law - if they'd have just kept their bigoted mouths shut, businesses that want to discriminate based on sexual orientation would likely have been able to do so until a federal law made such discrimination illegal.
Speaking of battery life, there's no mention of regenerative braking on this thing.
Their FAQ claims "Regenerative braking may be great for cars, but it's not as good for bikes." Other e-bikes and the Copenhagen Wheel have regenerative braking, so I wonder if Faraday is making unfounded excuses.
I don't get why all these electric bikes have you sitting in such an upright position.
Did you actually look at the Porteur? The handlebars are lower on the frame than the seat. That's not exactly an upright position, particularly for a "utility" bike.
One thing I find odd about this bike is the lack of regenerative braking. Faraday's FAQ notes that "Regenerative braking may be great for cars, but it's not as good for bikes." Anybody know why regenerative braking would be a disadvantage for an electric bike?
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that people have forgotten the atrocities of the Soviets...all the many atrocities done by the USSR or their puppets are history virtually forgotten since the Berlin Wall fell.
Maybe that's because the Soviets/USSR doesn't exist anymore, and hasn't since 1991. If you think Putin's regime is equivalent to the USSR, then you should probably do a re-fresh of your geo-political perspective.
Instead, the focus is on how evil the US is...
You're right! Instead, let's focus on the past evils of the USSR and ignore the more recent evils of the US. Forget the NSA...KGB! US invasion of Iraq? No no no! Soviet invasion of Afghanistan! Abu Ghraib was nuthin compared to Kolyma, Norilsk, or Vorkuta!!! USA! USA! USA!
Your strategy should really improve the credibility and moral authority of the US in the eyes of the rest of the world going forward. Why didn't someone think of this earlier?!?
What I found most interesting is what the head researcher found interesting:
In other words: Cambridge (Hawking) Dogma
Ofer Lahav didn't say anything of the sort. What Lahev said was the reason for non-independent viewpoints was "...these days we communicate continuously and too much. Developing independent points of view on cosmology, or indeed other matters, is therefore very difficult." - which has nothing to do with "Cambridge (Hawking) Dogma" (or anybody else's dogma for that matter).
Perhaps you didn't read TFA and simply decided you "knew" what Lahev was referring to just by reading the summary. In other words: you put words in Lahev's mouth to validate your fear of pervasive "ideologically/branding driven pseudo-science". In any case it looks like you have some ax to grind - and given the mods, you're not alone.
Predicted the same thing in 2008.
That wasn't Palin's idea, she stole it from Santorum (who in turn stole it from those Bible code dudes).
The best interest of the shareholders is not always ROI in terms of money. Par example think of continuity which is far more important then short term profits.
Even if ROI was the *only* interest of Apple shareholders, acceding to the NCPPR demand would have likely hurt Apple's share price. Pissing off your customers is not a good recipe for increasing ROI.
Funny how the good folks at the NCPPR didn't demand that Apple stop their philanthropic activities, which by NCPPR logic would also hurt shareholder value. For some reason, they only objected to Apple's "green" initiatives...I wonder why?
Either way, those "think tank" guys should go back to school and learn how capital assets are actually priced. If the NCPPR had gotten their way, it's likely that Apple's stock price would have gone down, not up.
That said, Canon's sensor tech have been rather stagnant the last few years, it's needs some revitalization.
The 70D has a new sensor, the Dual Pixel CMOS AF, which Canon will likely bring to their higher-end/full frame sensors as well.
I believe if you press and hold the "SET" button when powering up your camera, it will bypass Magic Lantern and load the vanilla Canon firmware.
As soon as warranty is up on my 6D I'll try it out.
Unfortunately, Magic Lantern development for the 6D has been pretty spotty. An unofficial release is available; check out this thread for instructions/info. If you don't want to try on your 6D, definitely give it a go on a T2i. It's truly amazing software.
"One of ML's newest features is a module named Dual ISO, which takes advantage of the sensor in some of Canon's high-end cameras (such as the 5D MK II and MK III)"
Nope. Dual ISO works on *most* Canon DSLRs, not just the 5DII/5DIII. More info here. Technical paper from the developer here.
Oh yeah, Magic Lantern is one of the most amazing and useful pieces of software I've ever come across. If you own a Canon DSLR, you owe it to yourself to check it out.
And next time someone comes in and robs them blind, will the perpetrators be buttpirates?
Already been done by "pirateat40" (aka Trendon Shavers).
Dude was offering 1% per week returns on an "investment" that he refused to give any information about because of his "proprietary business model".
There was no shortage of dupes lining up to give him their coins.
Here's the thread on bicointalk where Mt Gox announced their first attempts at providing some operational/financial data to the bitcoin marketplace.
Surprise! They never followed through with their commitment. :-(
So...your answer to "Aren't such countries essentially dumping cheap labor onto the world market?" is "no". Thanks.
Care to answer my other questions? (I'm not trying to be a dick...I really would like to hear how you would address the problem of subsidized labor)
This entire idea that any jobs should be protected is idiotic. If a job doesn't make economic sense it should be eliminated, that's the entire point of progress - eliminating inefficient jobs so that production can become more economical, as in cheaper, thus providing lower prices.
So what would be the proper way to deal with countries that subsidize their workforces? Aren't such countries essentially dumping cheap labor onto the world market? Wouldn't some kind of government action be the only way to effectively address such foul play? Or are you aware of some sort of approach that wouldn't require government intervention?
I seriously doubt your O-face makes a huge difference in facial recognition.
It might if you're wearing a S&M gag. Or so I've heard.
How many fingers am I holding up now?
Don't know about you, but I'm holding up one.
No, he would also say that there are flaws, such as monopolies, that would also have to be watched and prevented.
Quite true. Didn't mean to imply Smith didn't recognize the flaws in market economies. Too bad the leadership in the US fails to recognize the flaws in so called free markets - particularly in the case of monopolies.
Ask Adam Smith how the free market Handles everything.
The "Invisible Hand" right? The not so invisible hand that's been giving us the finger?
Hey, admitting a mistake is a sign of good character - and I respect you for that. Such admissions are damn near nonexistent on this site. Cheers!
Funny, but I don't see that anywhere. And unless it says that, that page isn't proof of your claim.
I guess you're saying you require proof that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the first law listed listed on that page) applies universally across the US.
I must admit, your demand for proof of something that is so painfully obvious displays a level of ignorance I'm not prepared to address. Congratulations! You got me!
With all respect, I really don't think that page is proof of much of anything. It's all about the law, sure, but there isn't a single word about jurisdiction.
You claimed "federal laws of that nature only apply to businesses that are involved in interstate commerce", which is demonstrably false. The page I linked to lists eight federal laws that apply to *all* US businesses - not just those businesses engaged in interstate commerce. Maybe if you'd read the page a little more thoroughly, you would have realized the invalidity of your original assertion. Better luck next time I guess.
Cheers!
Federal laws of that nature only apply to businesses that are involved in "interstate commerce". There are lots of businesses it simply would not affect.
Um....NO.
...but I think businesses should have the freedom to refuse service.
In Arizona, businesses *already* have the ability to refuse service to homosexuals.
This law is one of the last gasps of the "culture war" that the religious right has fought and lost. If Brewer signs it into law (unlikely), it will be quickly challenged in court and declared unconstitutional. That's the real stupidity of the religious nutters pushing through this law - if they'd have just kept their bigoted mouths shut, businesses that want to discriminate based on sexual orientation would likely have been able to do so until a federal law made such discrimination illegal.
Speaking of battery life, there's no mention of regenerative braking on this thing.
Their FAQ claims "Regenerative braking may be great for cars, but it's not as good for bikes." Other e-bikes and the Copenhagen Wheel have regenerative braking, so I wonder if Faraday is making unfounded excuses.
I don't get why all these electric bikes have you sitting in such an upright position.
Did you actually look at the Porteur? The handlebars are lower on the frame than the seat. That's not exactly an upright position, particularly for a "utility" bike.
One thing I find odd about this bike is the lack of regenerative braking. Faraday's FAQ notes that "Regenerative braking may be great for cars, but it's not as good for bikes." Anybody know why regenerative braking would be a disadvantage for an electric bike?
That is only a preliminary ruling, not a final judgment.
Not exactly. It's my understanding that the court found in favor of the plaintiff, but stayed the injunctive relief pending appeal.