Doesn't necessarily mean that work for the US though. Healthcare needs a total overhaul to bring costs down, not just a shift in how the insurance is paid for.
Gee, that's an interesting shift. Historically, those who usually railed against space travel and NASA were democrats who felt the money needed to be spent here at home, fighting poverty, disease, etc, generally via entitlement programs of some sort, "fixing our problems here first" rather than "cavorting around in space". The biggest chunk of US gov't spending right now goes to health care related programs, and the Republicans vote to cut funding to NASA instead since they couldn't touch those programs.. and now they get slammed for that too. SLS will have capabilities far exceeding those of CCDev: if you're going to spend, spend as an investment. Weren't we just talking about "dreaming big"?
And before the obvious "solution" is proffered, I don't think taxing the very rich a little more is going to nuke the economy, and would help some, (though I, like Warren Buffet, feel the $250k threshold is too low) but likewise it's not going give us an infinite amount of revenue either.
Same thing for European versus American bread: We Europeans (well, at least Dutch, Belgians, Germans, French,...) hate American bread: it lasts for weeks but tastes terrible. In the US, you have to really search for a good baker's shop to find anything resembling what we call "normal" bread.
Then there seems to be the male/female preference, at least, from my perspective. Every women I know seems to prefer the heavier, denser, drier bread like Pepperidge Farm; apparently it's supposed to be more "old world"; I think it tastes and feels stale, and prefer "classic" Wonder bread or Stroehmanns, which is softer, more airy, and more "moist", I suppose. One of life's little mysteries.
Anyway, I should clarify to everyone that's it's not that I'm pro-obesity or anything (fat !=beautiful), or that I deny America has an obesity problem (it does), it's just that I don't get why America gets singled out so much when it's a global issue. (That probably pretty much started in America due to "fast food" and junk snacks, but is now worldwide)
Bingo! Actually, for me,that was the first kind of application that came to mind years ago when word of E-ink and ePaper were new. Big but lightweight screen, small phone.
Still depends on the state you're in. In New York, $80k is indeed a pittance, but in, say, Georgia, or Kansas, both of which have large cities, that would probably be a really nice wage. It's definitely more than I make; I'm a network/systems/SAN administrator in a very densely populated mid-atlantic/northeastern state, we have over 50 servers and around 4,000 users or more, point being, it's not a ma and pa shop I work for. Then again, most of my peers do make more, they bargained better than I did when they got hired; promotions are virtually nonexistent here.
Not only is the guy not a lawyer, but his whole argument -or friendly warning, if that was his intent- is based on the notion that a hyperlink, in and of itself, constitutes "republishing". That's quite a stretch, IMO, though he says some courts have upheld that.
While they're at it, they may as well have any car manufacturers who make cars for the US remove the turn signals in the cars as well. American drivers don't fucking use them anyway, apparently they're considered optional now. Except by maybe me and two or three other people in a 50 mile radius.
The IIHS study you cite in Philadelphia...they don't mention it in the study but crashes went up after installation of red light cameras.
That's consistent with the Federal Highway Administration study that I cited. Yes, crashes increase, but their severities decrease, saving $50,000 per year in medical and repair costs.
But that's got to be at least slightly offset by the more frequent traffic jams these increased fender-bender type accidents cause: other drivers' time, wasted fuel/idling cars, not to mention bringing out the cops and EMTs more, possibly towtrucks..IOW, the logistics, not just the direct costs regarding only the two cars and their drivers involved in the accident.
I understand your point; but I see a huge difference between committing libel, and simply being a search engine that indexes and points to sites around the web.
Google is neutral. They aren't making the allegedly false statements. They aren't committing libel. They are not (or should not be) responsible for the *content* of links their spiders find, ever. They simply provide a neutral tool. So, I don't see why they should have to even remove the links. The plaintiff's beef is with those actually making the libelous statements. This is a BS call on the court's part.
I tend to agree with the poster who said they went after Google because Google has deep pockets. You can't get blood from a stone, so they shift the blame to something they *can* get blood from. Freakin' lawyers
Who seriously gives a flying shit where the POTUS - any POTUS- shopped, or probably more accurately, arranged a little photo op? I mean, it's well and good and all that Obama is promoting small business, but why not just ask the simple question of whether we'll shop locally or online? What does Obama specifically have to do with it? Did anyone care where GW Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, or Carter shopped? I doubt it.
IOW, can the media just stop fapping over Obama already? What's next, presidential product endorsements? ("President Obama prefers Colgate for that sparkling white smile!") The country and the media has been acting like a bunch of schoolgirls giggling over their teen idol for far too long.
It's embarrassing. He's a politician, not a movie star.
I concur, except I wouldn't ever have described it as a "perfectly good" Sci-Fi channel. I don't think it ever lived up to it's potential, which I found disappointing, though now it doesn't try to live up to anything at all, which I find pathetic.
You're being too kind, frankly.
My first reaction was, "this guy is clueless", but on second thought, he knows what's going on, he's just a derpbag. And now I've been too kind.
Good point. This has been around forever.
I didn't get outright bullied in school for being "smart" (I was/am no genius by any measure, but I was in the top tier classes all through high school and not a jock), but mostly I worried about being perceived as cool, as for some reason, cool has never been exactly equated with smart in that cultural setting.
Honestly though, that was probably more my fault and my perception that I would be unpopular unless I did certain things. I used to draw raunchy cartoons of the teachers and stuff, and in retrospect, that brought me a fair amount of popularity. After school, when I got into music and joined my first band, I wound up in the company of some of the toughest "cool" kids from school who thought I rocked, and for some reason, I felt like I'd accomplished something; even though I was deliberately dumbing myself down. I'd alter (simplify) my vocabulary and topics of conversation just to fit in better. Later I realized I never needed to do that. Or maybe by then they'd just grown a little more mature. Or both.
But I really would've thought in this day and age things had gotten better, as "geeks" are far more trendy now than they were in the late '70s when I went to high school.
The Republicans are blocking this because the right barrels aren't going to get enough pork, not because they don't appreciate the problem. Nor do they give a shit about our privacy. I just hope like hell that the debate is vigorous and involves people who actually know what they're talking about. Yeah, I know. I'm a dreamer.
...Aaand you think the Democrats won't be doing the same thing, making sure that certain palms get crossed with silver? What if the RIAA and MPAA has something to say about it?
I don't subscribe to this paranoid hivemind stereotyping that *all* cops are violent, corrupt bastards either; like you said, sure, some are asshats, and get into the "biz" for all the wrong reasons (power, authority) and I hate those pricks (I've known a few), but not all cops. There really are good guys out there too. The bad just get the most publicity.
That said, most cops are given a measure of leniency when exercising their discretion: if they want to give you that speeding ticket, they can; likewise if they're in a good mood and you're not an asshat at them, they can just let you off with a warning (I've had that happen) - even if the RADAR showed you speeding, they're allowed to let you slide if they decide to, so I tend to doubt this would interfere with that side of things, honestly -unless it was a much more serious offense, and in that case, no one should be sliding anyway, really.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't necessarily mean that work for the US though. Healthcare needs a total overhaul to bring costs down, not just a shift in how the insurance is paid for.
Gee, that's an interesting shift. Historically, those who usually railed against space travel and NASA were democrats who felt the money needed to be spent here at home, fighting poverty, disease, etc, generally via entitlement programs of some sort, "fixing our problems here first" rather than "cavorting around in space". The biggest chunk of US gov't spending right now goes to health care related programs, and the Republicans vote to cut funding to NASA instead since they couldn't touch those programs.. and now they get slammed for that too.
SLS will have capabilities far exceeding those of CCDev: if you're going to spend, spend as an investment. Weren't we just talking about "dreaming big"? And before the obvious "solution" is proffered, I don't think taxing the very rich a little more is going to nuke the economy, and would help some, (though I, like Warren Buffet, feel the $250k threshold is too low) but likewise it's not going give us an infinite amount of revenue either.
Same thing for European versus American bread: We Europeans (well, at least Dutch, Belgians, Germans, French,...) hate American bread: it lasts for weeks but tastes terrible. In the US, you have to really search for a good baker's shop to find anything resembling what we call "normal" bread.
Then there seems to be the male/female preference, at least, from my perspective. Every women I know seems to prefer the heavier, denser, drier bread like Pepperidge Farm; apparently it's supposed to be more "old world"; I think it tastes and feels stale, and prefer "classic" Wonder bread or Stroehmanns, which is softer, more airy, and more "moist", I suppose. One of life's little mysteries.
He should know better, greenhouse gases always settle in the southern hemisphere due to gravity!
..Cue the whooshes..
Good point.
Anyway, I should clarify to everyone that's it's not that I'm pro-obesity or anything (fat !=beautiful), or that I deny America has an obesity problem (it does), it's just that I don't get why America gets singled out so much when it's a global issue. (That probably pretty much started in America due to "fast food" and junk snacks, but is now worldwide)
Those were visiting Europeans ;p
Bingo! Actually, for me,that was the first kind of application that came to mind years ago when word of E-ink and ePaper were new. Big but lightweight screen, small phone.
At least Americans know not to wear speedos to the beach when they have huge guts, unlike a lot of Europeans. ;p
Don't bother, most servers these days come with deadlock seals.
Or as we call it, a "beer storage array".
I wanna work where you work, Aleister ...
This could fly over a few heads. It's "Leno". I still prefer a Carson, m'self.
Aw man, I'd have modded you up but I already posted in here.
Still depends on the state you're in. In New York, $80k is indeed a pittance, but in, say, Georgia, or Kansas, both of which have large cities, that would probably be a really nice wage. It's definitely more than I make; I'm a network/systems/SAN administrator in a very densely populated mid-atlantic/northeastern state, we have over 50 servers and around 4,000 users or more, point being, it's not a ma and pa shop I work for. Then again, most of my peers do make more, they bargained better than I did when they got hired; promotions are virtually nonexistent here.
Not only is the guy not a lawyer, but his whole argument -or friendly warning, if that was his intent- is based on the notion that a hyperlink, in and of itself, constitutes "republishing". That's quite a stretch, IMO, though he says some courts have upheld that.
While they're at it, they may as well have any car manufacturers who make cars for the US remove the turn signals in the cars as well. American drivers don't fucking use them anyway, apparently they're considered optional now. Except by maybe me and two or three other people in a 50 mile radius.
That's consistent with the Federal Highway Administration study that I cited. Yes, crashes increase, but their severities decrease, saving $50,000 per year in medical and repair costs.
But that's got to be at least slightly offset by the more frequent traffic jams these increased fender-bender type accidents cause: other drivers' time, wasted fuel/idling cars, not to mention bringing out the cops and EMTs more, possibly towtrucks..IOW, the logistics, not just the direct costs regarding only the two cars and their drivers involved in the accident.
Google is neutral. They aren't making the allegedly false statements. They aren't committing libel. They are not (or should not be) responsible for the *content* of links their spiders find, ever. They simply provide a neutral tool. So, I don't see why they should have to even remove the links. The plaintiff's beef is with those actually making the libelous statements. This is a BS call on the court's part.
I tend to agree with the poster who said they went after Google because Google has deep pockets. You can't get blood from a stone, so they shift the blame to something they *can* get blood from. Freakin' lawyers
Who seriously gives a flying shit where the POTUS - any POTUS- shopped, or probably more accurately, arranged a little photo op? I mean, it's well and good and all that Obama is promoting small business, but why not just ask the simple question of whether we'll shop locally or online? What does Obama specifically have to do with it? Did anyone care where GW Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, or Carter shopped? I doubt it.
IOW, can the media just stop fapping over Obama already? What's next, presidential product endorsements? ("President Obama prefers Colgate for that sparkling white smile!") The country and the media has been acting like a bunch of schoolgirls giggling over their teen idol for far too long.
It's embarrassing. He's a politician, not a movie star.
I concur, except I wouldn't ever have described it as a "perfectly good" Sci-Fi channel. I don't think it ever lived up to it's potential, which I found disappointing, though now it doesn't try to live up to anything at all, which I find pathetic.
What outrage? Just because they just didn't want to do it (not saying I agree with them) hardly earns a definition of outrage.
You're being too kind, frankly.
My first reaction was, "this guy is clueless", but on second thought, he knows what's going on, he's just a derpbag. And now I've been too kind.
Good point. This has been around forever.
I didn't get outright bullied in school for being "smart" (I was/am no genius by any measure, but I was in the top tier classes all through high school and not a jock), but mostly I worried about being perceived as cool, as for some reason, cool has never been exactly equated with smart in that cultural setting.
Honestly though, that was probably more my fault and my perception that I would be unpopular unless I did certain things. I used to draw raunchy cartoons of the teachers and stuff, and in retrospect, that brought me a fair amount of popularity. After school, when I got into music and joined my first band, I wound up in the company of some of the toughest "cool" kids from school who thought I rocked, and for some reason, I felt like I'd accomplished something; even though I was deliberately dumbing myself down. I'd alter (simplify) my vocabulary and topics of conversation just to fit in better. Later I realized I never needed to do that. Or maybe by then they'd just grown a little more mature. Or both.
But I really would've thought in this day and age things had gotten better, as "geeks" are far more trendy now than they were in the late '70s when I went to high school.
After that growth glowed down for a couple of billion years, and now it's speeding up again because of dark matter ).
I think you meant dark energy?
The Republicans are blocking this because the right barrels aren't going to get enough pork, not because they don't appreciate the problem. Nor do they give a shit about our privacy. I just hope like hell that the debate is vigorous and involves people who actually know what they're talking about. Yeah, I know. I'm a dreamer.
...Aaand you think the Democrats won't be doing the same thing, making sure that certain palms get crossed with silver? What if the RIAA and MPAA has something to say about it?
I don't subscribe to this paranoid hivemind stereotyping that *all* cops are violent, corrupt bastards either; like you said, sure, some are asshats, and get into the "biz" for all the wrong reasons (power, authority) and I hate those pricks (I've known a few), but not all cops. There really are good guys out there too. The bad just get the most publicity.
That said, most cops are given a measure of leniency when exercising their discretion: if they want to give you that speeding ticket, they can; likewise if they're in a good mood and you're not an asshat at them, they can just let you off with a warning (I've had that happen) - even if the RADAR showed you speeding, they're allowed to let you slide if they decide to, so I tend to doubt this would interfere with that side of things, honestly -unless it was a much more serious offense, and in that case, no one should be sliding anyway, really.