"the physical medium (i.e., a cable) carries bits to all stations, much the same way that the old "luminiferous ether" was once thought to propagate electromagnetic waves through space"
Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Dude, do you realize how huge AT&T is relative to Apple, and most other companies? As this little incident shows, Apple is virtually nothing compared to the wider interests of AT&T.
Current market caps: AT&T - $232bn, Apple - $160bn.
Yes, AT&T is bigger, but only by about 40%.
Also, note that social security money is not invested (actually the interest on the national debt is *collected against it*). If you took the money that you give to the government for social security and invested it instead, you would have way more money when it comes time to withdraw it. Given that, and inflation, and that the population isn't increasing enough to support social security (it's a pyramid scheme so you need more people paying into it than cashing out, which isn't happening anymore), it makes no sense to continue that policy.
This distinction between paying for welfare from current income or from investment is often made, but is essentially irrelevant. The crucial question is how much of our national economic capacity should we allocate to non-productive members of society? Once you've decided on this, it doesn't much matter whether you achieve it through an entitlement to a portion of corporate profits (i.e. having bought shares) or an entitlement to a portion of wages (i.e. payroll and income taxes) .
BUPA is not remotely comparable to US health insurance. The cover is very cheap, and most working people can easily afford it. The reason, of course, is that BUPA doesn't cover the expensive stuff - if you need long-term care or complex surgery they will simply refer you back to the NHS.
Forget about truthful statements that might cast the prophet in a bad light or go against their religion (like that he founded Islam
Ummm. What?
Many Muslims believe that Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc. were all followers of Islam. And that therefore, Muhammed did not found Islam - he was simply its last prophet.
A bijection between two sets shows they have the same cardinality.
"Countable" just means there's a bijection between that set and the whole numbers.
So yes, you're right and I'm right - hurray!
You're right that in calculus, one introduces the symbol infinity to talk about certain sorts of limits.
But there is more to mathematics than calculus. In set theory, there are many different infinities, corresponding to the size of various large sets. The size of the set of even numbers is certainly a valid number in this context. And the bijection x -> 2x showing a one-to-one correspondence between even numbers and whole numbers does indeed prove that inf + inf = inf for this infinity,
Infinity + 1 is the same as infinity for any cardinal infinity, where you are just measuring how many of something there are. But ordinal infinities, which measure the process of counting, are rather different. In that case 1+ inf = inf (magine taking the positive numbers and adding zero at the beginning - the set will still becounted the same way), but inf + 1 != inf, because that means counting all the positivie numbers and then counting one further thing when you're finished, which is different.
"Progressive taxation" is a technical tem meaning that the taxation rate increases as the amount taxed increases, or equivalently that the marginal rate of taxation is above the average rate of taxation. It shouldn't be interpreted as a value-judgement about the desirability of otherwise of such a system of taxation.
The original English word in this group is the noun "burglary", quickly followed by "burglar", both of which are first attested in the early 1500s, and ultimately derive from the Indo-European root *bherg, which means "high". The verb "burglarize" is a regular verb form, dating from the late 1800s, formed from "burglary" by the same process that gives us "scrutinize", "sympathize", etc. The British form "burgle" is an (apparently originally humorous) back-formation, also dating from the late 1800s, but not widely considered acceptable (in Britain) until somewhat later.
If the fence is really important to him you might be able to work out a deal to your own financial gain.
This is a really bad idea. If you are even considering it, make sure you get a contract drawn up by a property lawyer. Otherwise you may find your house impossible to sell or mortgage.
Also, if you do talk to your neighbour before calling in the law, make sure you do not say anything that could be interpreted as giving consent, even temporarily.
Granting permission and then lying about it to mortgage companies and potential purchasers will normally work out OK, but if it goes wrong the potential liability could be enormous - why take the risk?
Yes it is. It is code copyrighted by the regents of [...], and licensed to Microsoft under the BSD license. The only way in which it is no longer BSD code is that Microsoft license it you under a much more restrictive license, and incidentally don't supply you with the source. Nontheless, the code is still not Microsoft intellectual property - it continues to be owned by its originators.
It's a Tragedy of the Commons problem. If one company outsources, it's business savvy; if they all do, it's economic collapse.
I suppose it does bear some superficial resemblance to the tragedy of the commons, but not much - if it were the same, then when everyone uses the commons as much as they can, the commons would be so depleted as to be no use to anyone. I don't see how this happens in the outsourcing case.
To me, it is simply the collapse of a collusive agreement. US corporations are the major world consumers of IT labour, and have (irrationally) generally been refusing to buy it from the cheapest supplier. This is OK as long as everybody is operating under the same self-imposed handicap, but as soon as some people divert from this policy, the rest must follow suit in order to stay in business.
UK Slot Machines are not quite the same as American ones, and the laws are somewhat different, but you're certinaly right that they play with punters' emotions and give pre-determinded payoffs. See here for detailed examples and evidence.
The world itself already does have everything allocated to some "owner". Just try to go out and find something you can legally just claim.
It's hardly surprising that there is no longer much lying around to be claimed. But isn't the issue not so much a lack of unclaimed resources as an inappropriate extension of the concept of ownership?
I received the press release by email last night, via an email address that I never sign up for commercial email. When will companies realise that spam is not good advertising, especially amongst tech-savvy people?
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.ethermanage.com/ethernet/ethername.html
"the physical medium (i.e., a cable) carries bits to all stations, much the same way that the old "luminiferous ether" was once thought to propagate electromagnetic waves through space"
Current market caps: AT&T - $232bn, Apple - $160bn.
Yes, AT&T is bigger, but only by about 40%.
This distinction between paying for welfare from current income or from investment is often made, but is essentially irrelevant. The crucial question is how much of our national economic capacity should we allocate to non-productive members of society? Once you've decided on this, it doesn't much matter whether you achieve it through an entitlement to a portion of corporate profits (i.e. having bought shares) or an entitlement to a portion of wages (i.e. payroll and income taxes) .
lol what
BUPA is not remotely comparable to US health insurance. The cover is very cheap, and most working people can easily afford it. The reason, of course, is that BUPA doesn't cover the expensive stuff - if you need long-term care or complex surgery they will simply refer you back to the NHS.
Forget about truthful statements that might cast the prophet in a bad light or go against their religion (like that he founded Islam
Ummm. What?
Many Muslims believe that Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc. were all followers of Islam.
And that therefore, Muhammed did not found Islam - he was simply its last prophet.
It's called GNUstep. It's pretty good, but is incomplete, incompatible, and looks hideously ugly.
A bijection between two sets shows they have the same cardinality. "Countable" just means there's a bijection between that set and the whole numbers. So yes, you're right and I'm right - hurray!
You're right that in calculus, one introduces the symbol infinity to talk about certain sorts of limits. But there is more to mathematics than calculus. In set theory, there are many different infinities, corresponding to the size of various large sets. The size of the set of even numbers is certainly a valid number in this context. And the bijection x -> 2x showing a one-to-one correspondence between even numbers and whole numbers does indeed prove that inf + inf = inf for this infinity,
Infinity + 1 is the same as infinity for any cardinal infinity, where you are just measuring how many of something there are.
But ordinal infinities, which measure the process of counting, are rather different. In that case 1+ inf = inf (magine taking the positive numbers and adding zero at the beginning - the set will still becounted the same way), but inf + 1 != inf, because that means counting all the positivie numbers and then counting one further thing when you're finished, which is different.
"Progressive taxation" is a technical tem meaning that the taxation rate increases as the amount taxed increases, or equivalently that the marginal rate of taxation is above the average rate of taxation. It shouldn't be interpreted as a value-judgement about the desirability of otherwise of such a system of taxation.
The original English word in this group is the noun "burglary", quickly followed by "burglar", both of which are first attested in the early 1500s, and ultimately derive from the Indo-European root *bherg, which means "high". The verb "burglarize" is a regular verb form, dating from the late 1800s, formed from "burglary" by the same process that gives us "scrutinize", "sympathize", etc. The British form "burgle" is an (apparently originally humorous) back-formation, also dating from the late 1800s, but not widely considered acceptable (in Britain) until somewhat later.
This is a really bad idea. If you are even considering it, make sure you get a contract drawn up by a property lawyer. Otherwise you may find your house impossible to sell or mortgage.
Also, if you do talk to your neighbour before calling in the law, make sure you do not say anything that could be interpreted as giving consent, even temporarily.
Granting permission and then lying about it to mortgage companies and potential purchasers will normally work out OK, but if it goes wrong the potential liability could be enormous - why take the risk?
Yes it is. It is code copyrighted by the regents of [...], and licensed to Microsoft under the BSD license. The only way in which it is no longer BSD code is that Microsoft license it you under a much more restrictive license, and incidentally don't supply you with the source. Nontheless, the code is still not Microsoft intellectual property - it continues to be owned by its originators.
Computer scientist? I think you mean software engineer.
Close, but the "porn" in "pornograph" is from the Greek for prostitute, not body.
UK public sector organisations are obliged to advertise positions and treat internal and external candidates equally.
Of course in practice, they simply mould the person specification to fit the internal candidate they want to give the job to.
No they don't.
Yes they do.
I suppose it does bear some superficial resemblance to the tragedy of the commons, but not much - if it were the same, then when everyone uses the commons as much as they can, the commons would be so depleted as to be no use to anyone. I don't see how this happens in the outsourcing case.
To me, it is simply the collapse of a collusive agreement. US corporations are the major world consumers of IT labour, and have (irrationally) generally been refusing to buy it from the cheapest supplier. This is OK as long as everybody is operating under the same self-imposed handicap, but as soon as some people divert from this policy, the rest must follow suit in order to stay in business.
UK Slot Machines are not quite the same as American ones, and the laws are somewhat different, but you're certinaly right that they play with punters' emotions and give pre-determinded payoffs. See here for detailed examples and evidence.
Sun is not an acronym.
SUN originally stood for Stanford University Network.
ESR had stock. Still worthless though.
It's hardly surprising that there is no longer much lying around to be claimed. But isn't the issue not so much a lack of unclaimed resources as an inappropriate extension of the concept of ownership?
I received the press release by email last night, via an email address that I never sign up for commercial email.
When will companies realise that spam is not good advertising, especially amongst tech-savvy people?
The Slashdot summary says otherwise, but the press released linked to is pretty clear.