No offense, but weren't food stamps originally billed on the argument that it's providing food to families who couldn't otherwise afford it? Instead, we're providing food to families who could afford it, but now can use the saved money on some luxuries.
Ignoring the obviously charged political debate about whether or not this is what our society should be doing, I still find it sad that our laws are justified using one reason, but when implemented embody an entirely different one.
From what I can determine, all the Windows Firewall does is block ports to incoming connections. Why not just have those ports, oh I don't know, off to begin with? Yes, some need to be open in order for local subsystems to function correctly--but isn't that what binding to a particular interface is for?
Are you sure you want this? If you'd get slapped asking out a supermodel now, imagine what would happen if they were genetically engineered to have eight times the strength!
Not exactly. Those 200 dogs were going to shit somewhere, whereas spam wouldn't necessarily have built up in the spammer's inbox until he sent it to you.
The correct analogy is that it's more like 200 neighbors purchasing and breeding dogs for the sole purpose of shitting in your yard each day.
As I see it, a vote for a third party carries far more weight than a vote for one of the primary parties. When you vote, for instance, Libertarian, your vote gives them proportionally more media coverage, funding, and ballot access than either of the established parties receive. As recent example, both Greens and Libertarians received enormously disproportional amounts of coverage (the Greens in particular) after the 2000 election. Why? The percentage of their votes, in many states, was well above the margin between the two primary candidates. Most political analysts believed that the Green Party significantly swung the outcome of the 2000 presidential election, and as a result, they gained more media coverage than anyone could have predicted.
Third parties also gain in less inflammatory ways when they receive more votes. It helps them receive campaign funding from the federal government, for one. A few more votes one year, in many cases, will allow the party to run several more candidates the next. All thanks to more funding. Even more importantly, in many states, more votes are the precursor to ballot access, which in turn helps the party concentrate on campaigning rather than petitioning. Today, ballot access is one of the most pressuring obstacles facing third parties; in states like Georgia, only one third party candidate has ever been on the ballot for the United States House of Representatives.
How does this happen? In Georgia, third parties must submit a petition signed by over 5% of the number of registered voters in the district in order to get on the ballot for any office. When the voter roles haven't been purged in a decade, leaving both dead voters and invalidated voters still listed, the true number in many cases exceeds 10%. Even worse, due to gerrymandering, many third parties have no clue about the final geographical layout of districts, until a month or two prior to the petition deadlines. When the district lines are changed again and again, many petition signatures which were once valid are no longer, since the signatory no longer lives within the correct district. I am digressing substantially from my original purpose, but there is plenty to read regarding ballot access, for those who are interested.
Back to the original topic. We've covered voting for third parties, but if you look closely, does it really matter if we have a Republican or a Democrat president? It's a toss-up to how much they will suck, and it's usually irrelevant what party they're from. Bush hasn't been the best president ever, but Clinton was pretty poor, too. And now, it seems like the two parties are converging. Republicans are creating bureaucracy and spending like crazy. Democrats are opposing gay marriage and won't stop the drug war. As far as I'm concerned, it's two heads of the same hydra.
So go ahead, throw away that vote of yours. I insist.
The stakes would only be "WAY too big this time around" if the candidates were actually any different. For all that Kerry complains of Bush's failures, I have yet to hear any ideas for how he would mend those failures.
I have serious concerns of how Kerry will be able to make decisions, without Bush making the "wrong" ones, for him to base them off of.
Your assumptions imply that somehow driving the speed limit is responsible, and not driving the speed limit is irresponsible. Going fast is going to kill a small child, while driving the speed limit you won't.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that the speed limit is arbitrary. You could just as easily fault him for driving the speed limit, rather than ten miles per hour below. After all, it might save a life.
Who determines what speed you should be driving? Or what effects the weather should have on your speed? I don't think it should be a blanket number set arbitrarily by the government. There are plent of people who drive quite safely at 85mph. There are some people I wouldn't trust to go over 25mph. The problem is that there's no static number that defines what speed is safe and what speed is dangerous. It varies from person to person.
In fact, in many cases, it's overly-timid driving that causes accidents. Ever merged onto a highway behind someone doing 20 under? I guarantee that's just as dangerous, if not more, than cruising along at 20 over.
What's the common vein? Disparity in speed. In my opinion, we shouldn't have a system consisting of a static number speed limit, but one based on the speed of average traffic. If the road is empty, it's your own decision on how fast to go. If the road is fairly congested, then ticket the folk going 15mph (arbitrary number I'm making up on the spot) up or down from the median.
You'd have to play one hell of a ping-pong game with the gravitational force of planets in order to shed off the kinds of speed we're talking about with intergalactic travel.
It's better just to keep pointed in the direction of that system's star. If both sides are reflective, you'll slow down as you approach.
In fact, I missed an even larger issue. Proving that 0.999... = 0.999... does not in any way imply a negation of a proof that 0.999... = 1.
As a thought exercise, assume for a moment that I have proven the equality 1 = 2. Demonstrating a proof that 1 = 1 in no way negates my earlier construction, as we can combine the equalities: 1 = 1 = 2.
Your proof assumes that n is finite. In the case of a repeating decimal, the repeating portion is infinite.
In fact, your conclusion from n tending towards infinity is incorrect. In that case, the decimal quite clearly converges towards 1.0 as n approaches infinity.
Exactly. With previous Microsoft takeovers, they would buy out the company, and thus own the rights to the code. This is not possible with free software. Whereas most companies would have to build from the ground-up to begin competing with Microsoft, there's already an enormous code base to start that attack with.
You're missing a big part of signature-based cryptography: trust. 95% of the folks who put out torrents aren't doing so by the will of the original distributor, so you're going to have to rely on the digital signatures of a bunch of random people.
Remember, digital signatures and hashes only verify that the content matches the original hash. It says nothing about whether or not the content was modified before a hash was made.
The point you make about typing errors is extremely salient. I can touch type at a reasonable clip, but I type with about 95% accuracy, rather than the 99% it seems most people can. One huge advantage I've learned to use with touch-typing is error-correction. I can somehow "know" when I've made a typing error, and correct it (even when the error was multiple characters back), all without looking at the screen or the keyboard. This type of error-correction is incredibly useful, and should not be understated.
With that guy representing the other side, I don't think we have anything to worry about. Insinuating that Doug Lowenstein is even lower on the moral scale than Saddam Hussein is all but a dead giveaway that the man possesses no faculties for logic, reasoning, or intelligent discourse.
One of my biggest problems is that I'm so busy during the day, I rarely get a moment to sort through my thoughts and start doing some deep thinking. A significant portion of my job requires long-term thinking and planning, as do a lot of my own personal projects. Since I can't really ponder them on my own time, I start doing it the second my mind gets a break. In other words, when I start to go to sleep. I would lie in bed for hours at a time, just churning away until I finally exhausted the queue.
Now I make sure I get plenty of time to think to myself during the day. Sometimes I just take a walk during work, other times I make sure I haven't overscheduled myself.
If you find yourself lying awake at night because that's when you do your deepest thinking, try what I did. Make some time for that during the day.
This isn't as much of a problem with the game as it is your perception of the game. Raven Shield is not Quake or Doom. It is not Half-Life. The *point* of Raven Shield is the tactical setup of your assault--assigning members, gear, waypoints, and having everyone work synchronously towards the same goal. The missions themselves are simply where you get to see whether or not your plan worked.
That's a pretty poor metric, it goes by the user agent string. I can't say I know any linux user (or any nonIE user for that matter) who doesn't change their user agent string to be IE 6sp1 on windows.
Slashdot Mirror
...so I use MACs all the time. What are you talking about?
No offense, but weren't food stamps originally billed on the argument that it's providing food to families who couldn't otherwise afford it? Instead, we're providing food to families who could afford it, but now can use the saved money on some luxuries.
Ignoring the obviously charged political debate about whether or not this is what our society should be doing, I still find it sad that our laws are justified using one reason, but when implemented embody an entirely different one.
From what I can determine, all the Windows Firewall does is block ports to incoming connections. Why not just have those ports, oh I don't know, off to begin with? Yes, some need to be open in order for local subsystems to function correctly--but isn't that what binding to a particular interface is for?
Are you sure you want this? If you'd get slapped asking out a supermodel now, imagine what would happen if they were genetically engineered to have eight times the strength!
Mathematicians do it smoothly and continuously
And generally in a well-behaved manner ;)
Not exactly. Those 200 dogs were going to shit somewhere, whereas spam wouldn't necessarily have built up in the spammer's inbox until he sent it to you.
The correct analogy is that it's more like 200 neighbors purchasing and breeding dogs for the sole purpose of shitting in your yard each day.
As I see it, a vote for a third party carries far more weight than a vote for one of the primary parties. When you vote, for instance, Libertarian, your vote gives them proportionally more media coverage, funding, and ballot access than either of the established parties receive. As recent example, both Greens and Libertarians received enormously disproportional amounts of coverage (the Greens in particular) after the 2000 election. Why? The percentage of their votes, in many states, was well above the margin between the two primary candidates. Most political analysts believed that the Green Party significantly swung the outcome of the 2000 presidential election, and as a result, they gained more media coverage than anyone could have predicted.
Third parties also gain in less inflammatory ways when they receive more votes. It helps them receive campaign funding from the federal government, for one. A few more votes one year, in many cases, will allow the party to run several more candidates the next. All thanks to more funding. Even more importantly, in many states, more votes are the precursor to ballot access, which in turn helps the party concentrate on campaigning rather than petitioning. Today, ballot access is one of the most pressuring obstacles facing third parties; in states like Georgia, only one third party candidate has ever been on the ballot for the United States House of Representatives.
How does this happen? In Georgia, third parties must submit a petition signed by over 5% of the number of registered voters in the district in order to get on the ballot for any office. When the voter roles haven't been purged in a decade, leaving both dead voters and invalidated voters still listed, the true number in many cases exceeds 10%. Even worse, due to gerrymandering, many third parties have no clue about the final geographical layout of districts, until a month or two prior to the petition deadlines. When the district lines are changed again and again, many petition signatures which were once valid are no longer, since the signatory no longer lives within the correct district. I am digressing substantially from my original purpose, but there is plenty to read regarding ballot access, for those who are interested.
Back to the original topic. We've covered voting for third parties, but if you look closely, does it really matter if we have a Republican or a Democrat president? It's a toss-up to how much they will suck, and it's usually irrelevant what party they're from. Bush hasn't been the best president ever, but Clinton was pretty poor, too. And now, it seems like the two parties are converging. Republicans are creating bureaucracy and spending like crazy. Democrats are opposing gay marriage and won't stop the drug war. As far as I'm concerned, it's two heads of the same hydra.
So go ahead, throw away that vote of yours. I insist.
The stakes would only be "WAY too big this time around" if the candidates were actually any different. For all that Kerry complains of Bush's failures, I have yet to hear any ideas for how he would mend those failures.
I have serious concerns of how Kerry will be able to make decisions, without Bush making the "wrong" ones, for him to base them off of.
I would, but...
Your assumptions imply that somehow driving the speed limit is responsible, and not driving the speed limit is irresponsible. Going fast is going to kill a small child, while driving the speed limit you won't.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that the speed limit is arbitrary. You could just as easily fault him for driving the speed limit, rather than ten miles per hour below. After all, it might save a life.
Who determines what speed you should be driving? Or what effects the weather should have on your speed? I don't think it should be a blanket number set arbitrarily by the government. There are plent of people who drive quite safely at 85mph. There are some people I wouldn't trust to go over 25mph. The problem is that there's no static number that defines what speed is safe and what speed is dangerous. It varies from person to person.
In fact, in many cases, it's overly-timid driving that causes accidents. Ever merged onto a highway behind someone doing 20 under? I guarantee that's just as dangerous, if not more, than cruising along at 20 over.
What's the common vein? Disparity in speed. In my opinion, we shouldn't have a system consisting of a static number speed limit, but one based on the speed of average traffic. If the road is empty, it's your own decision on how fast to go. If the road is fairly congested, then ticket the folk going 15mph (arbitrary number I'm making up on the spot) up or down from the median.
You'd have to play one hell of a ping-pong game with the gravitational force of planets in order to shed off the kinds of speed we're talking about with intergalactic travel.
It's better just to keep pointed in the direction of that system's star. If both sides are reflective, you'll slow down as you approach.
In fact, I missed an even larger issue. Proving that 0.999... = 0.999... does not in any way imply a negation of a proof that 0.999... = 1.
As a thought exercise, assume for a moment that I have proven the equality 1 = 2. Demonstrating a proof that 1 = 1 in no way negates my earlier construction, as we can combine the equalities: 1 = 1 = 2.
Your proof assumes that n is finite. In the case of a repeating decimal, the repeating portion is infinite.
In fact, your conclusion from n tending towards infinity is incorrect. In that case, the decimal quite clearly converges towards 1.0 as n approaches infinity.
Exactly. With previous Microsoft takeovers, they would buy out the company, and thus own the rights to the code. This is not possible with free software. Whereas most companies would have to build from the ground-up to begin competing with Microsoft, there's already an enormous code base to start that attack with.
You're missing a big part of signature-based cryptography: trust. 95% of the folks who put out torrents aren't doing so by the will of the original distributor, so you're going to have to rely on the digital signatures of a bunch of random people.
Remember, digital signatures and hashes only verify that the content matches the original hash. It says nothing about whether or not the content was modified before a hash was made.
Only with written permission from Disney. That's case is covered by the DMCA.
The point you make about typing errors is extremely salient. I can touch type at a reasonable clip, but I type with about 95% accuracy, rather than the 99% it seems most people can. One huge advantage I've learned to use with touch-typing is error-correction. I can somehow "know" when I've made a typing error, and correct it (even when the error was multiple characters back), all without looking at the screen or the keyboard. This type of error-correction is incredibly useful, and should not be understated.
With that guy representing the other side, I don't think we have anything to worry about. Insinuating that Doug Lowenstein is even lower on the moral scale than Saddam Hussein is all but a dead giveaway that the man possesses no faculties for logic, reasoning, or intelligent discourse.
I hear that's coming this year.
This must be Soviet Russia.
I suppose about the same as getting basic 10-year-old grammar wrong in your Second Post.
One of my biggest problems is that I'm so busy during the day, I rarely get a moment to sort through my thoughts and start doing some deep thinking. A significant portion of my job requires long-term thinking and planning, as do a lot of my own personal projects. Since I can't really ponder them on my own time, I start doing it the second my mind gets a break. In other words, when I start to go to sleep. I would lie in bed for hours at a time, just churning away until I finally exhausted the queue.
Now I make sure I get plenty of time to think to myself during the day. Sometimes I just take a walk during work, other times I make sure I haven't overscheduled myself.
If you find yourself lying awake at night because that's when you do your deepest thinking, try what I did. Make some time for that during the day.
This isn't as much of a problem with the game as it is your perception of the game. Raven Shield is not Quake or Doom. It is not Half-Life. The *point* of Raven Shield is the tactical setup of your assault--assigning members, gear, waypoints, and having everyone work synchronously towards the same goal. The missions themselves are simply where you get to see whether or not your plan worked.
Also, can you please reference exactly where and when he attacked us almost daily.
Saddam's forces shot at our planes nearly every day, while we patrolled the UN-mandated No Fly Zone.
That's a pretty poor metric, it goes by the user agent string. I can't say I know any linux user (or any nonIE user for that matter) who doesn't change their user agent string to be IE 6sp1 on windows.
I don't.