China has too few of those to go to the mat with the USA. Russia exaggerates the number of active warheads it can maintain, has half that of the USA.
If you can reliably deliver even 20 warheads to the US on a second strike, you've got more than enough to keep even the most hawkish of politicians or generals from wanting to get into a nuclear slugging match.
If I steal $50 million dollars and give it to my son, does he have to give the money back?
If you're 100% broke and steal a dime, and through shrewd investment build it up into millions, which in your will you pass on to your son who builds it up to billions, then the descendants of the rightful owner of the original dime have to give you their entire fortune down to the last penny. Or so I learned from "Duck Tales". Possibly the real world does not work this way.:-)
Maybe Sandberg is anticipating reduced labor costs offsetting the square foot price of real estate? Reduced 'cuz of not having to pay OT to IT people?
You don't seriously think they were paying OT to their people before, do you? Software engineers are already exempt under the existing law. The only category it really adds is pure system and network administrators.
guys with counterinsurgency, communications, and assorted other handy special forces skills(a somewhat embarrassing number of whom were trained on Uncle Sam's dime at the School of the Americas, in an attempt to improve Mexico's anti-drug capabilities. Oops.)
Yeah, that's a problem with mercenaries... they tend to be mercenary.
I've always thought it was because habitual use of cannabis tends to impair one's ability to contribute to society in a meaningful manner. Know any stoners in professional positions? Are they generally as punctual, competent and productive as their non-toking counterparts? I'm not talking about artists or entertainers, more like mechanics, factory workers, construction workers, truck drivers, etc. You know, the kinds of endeavors that help a country win a war like WWII. Most people I've worked with are considerably less competent at the job they are being paid to do after a joint break.
There are plenty of "stoners", if by "stoner" you include anyone who occasionally uses marijuana, in professional positions. And they are not universally incompetent, tardy, or unproductive. Of course if you use pot when you're working, you're likely to be less productive. Most people are less productive after having a beer, too; that's no reason to ban either one.
Further, there are really two issues here -- one, whether marijuana users are impaired in one's ability to contribute to society. Two, whether such impairment would justify banning the drug. The first I believe to be false as an absolute while it may supportable statistically. The second... well, to ban a drug for that reason is to claim that the individual is society's slave, merely a cog in a machine, and their own enjoyment means nothing compared to their productive output. That's a pretty nasty thing.
Are they certified? Last I checked most CS majors and other code monkeys don't take the PE exam.
This again? The guy driving the train I take to work -- he's an engineer, and he hasn't taken the P.E. exam either. The guys in the Army who build bridges or blow them up? They're engineers, with no P.E. exam. Stuck-up PEs may have managed to monopolize the word "engineer" in Canada (except the guy driving the train or running a boiler is still an engineer, much to the PEs dismay), but despite the Wikipedia article, the same is not true in the US.
The weasel-wording of "many states" requiring a license for a "software engineer" is sort of interesting. As far as I can tell, the only state issuing a software engineering license is Texas. One state does not "many" make. The source appears to be one of those Professional Engineers so offended by the "software engineer" title. The paper is sort of interesting; it admits that much of the software engineering I have done (embedded programming, programming for medical devices) is in fact engineering, but asserts that it was illegal for me to do it.
The requirements listed for becoming a software engineer in Texas are ridiculously difficult 1: Accepted degree (which does include a CS degree) 2: 16 years of "creditable experience" performing engineering work (12 years if you hold an engineering degree, which does not include a CS degree). Note that "creditable experience" usually means you need another engineer to vouch that you did it under their supervision. 3: References from 9 people including 5 engineers. 4: Other stuff not specified.
Note that due to the "industrial exemption" you deride, this doesn't affect employees at all. What it does do, if strictly enforced, is put most independent software consultants out of business.
The PEs and IEEE seem to think they can get software engineering licensure passed everywhere; I hope the IEEE doesn't mind losing most of its software engineer members. The ACM, to its credit, opposes it.
Maybe you didn't read all of the article either. The judge felt that Apple's patent was invalid. Meaning, the judge didn't "agree with Apple on almost all points, except the one . . . "
The judge felt that the D'087 patent was likely invalid (too similar to previous designs), but not the D'677 patent. The D'677 patent covers the black transparent glass-like front surface. I think the judge was wrong in not dismissing that based on it being a functional component, but that's still to be litigated.
Supporters of the various hate speech laws and are quick to point out the freedom of speech has its limits.
Anyone making the argument that "freedom of speech has limits" in order to justify a particular limit is intending on greasing the rhetorical slope and pushing you down it.
I think it is also safe to assume that these very same people are probably in general agreement with OWS.
Only in that both groups include a lot of leftists. Personally, I find it hard to agree or disagree with OWS, in that their message is incoherent; some groups have put out messages claiming to speak for the protesters, but aside from the general idea "Rich people suck", I'm not sure the statements really are representative. Personally I prefer to consider myself part of the 52% (that's the 53% who pay taxes, minus the top 1% of rich bastards. OK, may be approximate due to non-taxpaying rich bastards)
Indeed they can use it against you, but that is only part of the theater event we call politics, i.e., huge rhetorical differences, zero policy differences. Witness the disparaging remarks democrats made against Bush for his civil liberties violations, such as due process free detention. Those same people, now that Obama is in office, are using Bush/Cheney arguments to justify Obama's policies including due process free execution.
Just because the two sides are the same from our viewpoint doesn't mean that they aren't actually opposed in the one thing that matters to them, which is who is to be the master.
If you merely ignore the constitution, your enemies may use that against you; not because they have love of the constitution, but merely because they can. Interpreting it out of existence is both more permanent and less likely to rebound on you. Example: Having the cops beat the shit out of Occupy Wall Street protesters on camera. Sure, you can get away with it, but it could cause political damage. Better: Re-interpret the constitution so "freedom of assembly" means "assembly only in designated protest areas, for short periods of time". Then have the cops beat the shit out of the protesters not for protesting, but for protesting in the wrong place. You're just following the law, then.
I doubt they'd spend tens of kilobux they don't have on an electric powered trike
You see electric powered bikes all over New York City as well, but one thing has nothing to do with another. An electric bike isn't intended as a car replacement, whereas the Aptera is.
Translation: we're cowards, you should be, too. No wonder the world is so messed up. There was a time when Americans would die to right trivial wrongs, but now they hide from even threat of a lawsuit and shrug moral and social responsibility.
It may be cowardice to give in to overwhelming force, but the other way doesn't work so well.
This must mean I live in a country filled with idiots. In many places, the amber light is called the "go faster" light -- a warning that if you don't get through the intersection soon, you're going to have to stop at a red. Really.
The part after the dash is legally what the yellow light means in most US states. It does not mean that you must stop if you are able (which is what it means in the exceptions), and it certainly doesn't, Jim Ignatowski aside, mean "slow down". Slowing down for a yellow without meaning to stop merely increases your chance of running the red.
Delayed reds make much more sense to me than extended ambers.
Both are helpful, particularly with wide high-speed intersections. The extended red ("clearance interval") allows people who entered legally on yellow time to clear the intersection. The yellow ("change interval") gives people warning that the light is going to turn red, so they can prepare to stop if they are too far from the light. With a too-short yellow, drivers will be unable to stop in time to avoid running the red. With no intersection clearing interval, you have conflicts between vehicles approaching the fresh green and vehicles which entered on stale yellow.
However, drug patents last up to 20 years. Rather than riding heavily on Lipitor profits for that period of time, and releasing alternate versions of the same drug over and over again, wouldn't it have been prudent to turn efforts toward producing and patenting the Next Amazing Drug?
Because medical science is stalled. Whether because of super-evil drug companies, overly conservative regulatory regimes, a lack of funding for research, or some other cause, there really haven't been any major medical advances in a long time. Sure, you get constant stories about the next great thing... but then it never comes to fruition. When the most "Amazing" drug isn't a cure (or even a palliative) for any disease but rather a lifestyle drug which lowers a number on a blood test, you know there's not much going on.
Show me a drug which cures Alzheimers. Show me a cure for Type 1 diabetes, or celiac, or Parkinsons or Huntingdons. Or arthritis. Show me a new antibiotic that works on pandrug-resistant staph. Show me a cure for any viral infection, or even an effective palliative for the common cold.
The article says that 380v DC is the sweet spot, but why? Here in the US 440v (3 phase) AC is pretty common, as is 220v AC. I realize there's a world of difference between AC and DC, but that's about all I can think of.
They've probably figured that common power supplies designed for 240VAC can be run off 380VDC by bypassing the rectifier diodes. Doing the math gets you 340V, but maybe they've looked at the actual devices available or in common use.
I read about something called broken window fallacy in wikipedia. Taking inefficiencies out of a system is always good. For example, suppose a hamburger costs $50 because some guy makes it. If we fire him and create a machine that automates hamburger making, we can make hamburgers for $5. When we do that people can enjoy hamburgers for $5 and spend the rest $45 on a nice book, which means the publishing industry prosper and more jobs are created in publishing field.
Sure, taking inefficiencies out of the system is good for the system overall. But just as broken windows put money in the pockets of glaziers, your hamburger-man is out of a job. Wealth can have increased overall even if your hamburger-man quietly starves to death.
How could we set up a system that supports twice as many people working half as long?
First you'd have to solve two economic realities:
1) 1 person working 40 hours is more productive than two people working 20, in many cases. 2) 1 person working 40 hours costs less than two people working 20. A lot less. Overhead per employee is enormously large in the US.
Hogwash. The cost portion of a given manufactured item that goes toward manufacturing labor is typically only about 1/3 of the product price. The rest is shipping, distribution, storage, marketing, stocking, transfer markups, etc.
Thus, if the factory workers' wages in the US were twice what they are in China, then the store price of a $3 item would be about $4.
You're making two very poor assumptions; one, that factory worker's wages in the US are merely twice that of such wages in China. In fact, they are far more than that; an electronics assembler at Foxconn in China now makes $290 a _month_, whereas a US assembler would make about $11 an hour. And you can bet the Foxconn assembler is working more than 40 hours a week. Until recently that assembler in China made $130/month.
Two, that the percentage of cost which goes towards labor remains stable as costs change. A product made in China has much lower labor costs as a percentage of total costs than a similar product made in the US. This means a small increase in US wages will have a greater impact in the total cost of the product than a small increase (or sometimes, even a large one) in Chinese wages.
The minute/. starts to "Allow trusted evaluators to transfer a 'quantity of authority' to like-minded 'contributing authorities', who in turn designate and delegate authority to additional like-minded contributing authorities." because that is too much like the current system of media control and politics, or in other words go with the flow or fuck off.
The other nice thing about email is there is a trail of the conversation I can use to say "No, you said this" and forward them a copy when they change their mind about something and claim I "misunderstood" them, which has saved my butt more than once on bad specs.
You do understand that they a) Know damn well you didn't "misunderstand" and b) Don't care that you have proof otherwise.
When they're saying that you "misunderstood", they are asserting that they have power over you and they can bend you to their will whatever the facts are. Reality does not matter. If you are actually so impolitic as to bring up proof otherwise, they will have to either admit they were bluffing, or use the power they have. Neither bodes well for any future relationship.
oil subsidies? wtf? oil is fucking cheap. it's TAXED to a level where some other sources make seemingly sense if those are not taxed as highly.
For politically incorrect sources of energy, you take all the direct costs. Then you add in the costs of regulation (never mind that they're largely already included in the price). Then you add in some amount you made up to cover conventional pollution. Then you add a bunch more to cover CO2. Then you add in the cost of any military presence you can, by logic chains strong or tenuous, connect to oil. Then you add in the cost of road congestion, lung disease, oil worker pensions, and anything else you can come up with. Then you double all this to provide a margin of error.
For politically correct sources of energy, you take the current costs (ignoring the huge direct subsidies and the fact that the providers are losing money anyway), and project them downward for technological improvement.
The first transcontinental railroad took less than 10 years to build -- considerably less. Before doing something like this, figure out why the hell it's going to take 30 years, and fix that first.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can reliably deliver even 20 warheads to the US on a second strike, you've got more than enough to keep even the most hawkish of politicians or generals from wanting to get into a nuclear slugging match.
If you're 100% broke and steal a dime, and through shrewd investment build it up into millions, which in your will you pass on to your son who builds it up to billions, then the descendants of the rightful owner of the original dime have to give you their entire fortune down to the last penny. Or so I learned from "Duck Tales". Possibly the real world does not work this way. :-)
You don't seriously think they were paying OT to their people before, do you? Software engineers are already exempt under the existing law. The only category it really adds is pure system and network administrators.
Yeah, that's a problem with mercenaries... they tend to be mercenary.
There are plenty of "stoners", if by "stoner" you include anyone who occasionally uses marijuana, in professional positions. And they are not universally incompetent, tardy, or unproductive. Of course if you use pot when you're working, you're likely to be less productive. Most people are less productive after having a beer, too; that's no reason to ban either one.
Further, there are really two issues here -- one, whether marijuana users are impaired in one's ability to contribute to society. Two, whether such impairment would justify banning the drug. The first I believe to be false as an absolute while it may supportable statistically. The second... well, to ban a drug for that reason is to claim that the individual is society's slave, merely a cog in a machine, and their own enjoyment means nothing compared to their productive output. That's a pretty nasty thing.
This again? The guy driving the train I take to work -- he's an engineer, and he hasn't taken the P.E. exam either. The guys in the Army who build bridges or blow them up? They're engineers, with no P.E. exam. Stuck-up PEs may have managed to monopolize the word "engineer" in Canada (except the guy driving the train or running a boiler is still an engineer, much to the PEs dismay), but despite the Wikipedia article, the same is not true in the US.
The weasel-wording of "many states" requiring a license for a "software engineer" is sort of interesting. As far as I can tell, the only state issuing a software engineering license is Texas. One state does not "many" make. The source appears to be one of those Professional Engineers so offended by the "software engineer" title. The paper is sort of interesting; it admits that much of the software engineering I have done (embedded programming, programming for medical devices) is in fact engineering, but asserts that it was illegal for me to do it.
The requirements listed for becoming a software engineer in Texas are ridiculously difficult
1: Accepted degree (which does include a CS degree)
2: 16 years of "creditable experience" performing engineering work (12 years if you hold an engineering degree, which does not include a CS degree). Note that "creditable experience" usually means you need another engineer to vouch that you did it under their supervision.
3: References from 9 people including 5 engineers.
4: Other stuff not specified.
Note that due to the "industrial exemption" you deride, this doesn't affect employees at all. What it does do, if strictly enforced, is put most independent software consultants out of business.
The PEs and IEEE seem to think they can get software engineering licensure passed everywhere; I hope the IEEE doesn't mind losing most of its software engineer members. The ACM, to its credit, opposes it.
IEEE article
Texas article
The judge felt that the D'087 patent was likely invalid (too similar to previous designs), but not the D'677 patent. The D'677 patent covers the black transparent glass-like front surface. I think the judge was wrong in not dismissing that based on it being a functional component, but that's still to be litigated.
Anyone making the argument that "freedom of speech has limits" in order to justify a particular limit is intending on greasing the rhetorical slope and pushing you down it.
Only in that both groups include a lot of leftists. Personally, I find it hard to agree or disagree with OWS, in that their message is incoherent; some groups have put out messages claiming to speak for the protesters, but aside from the general idea "Rich people suck", I'm not sure the statements really are representative. Personally I prefer to consider myself part of the 52% (that's the 53% who pay taxes, minus the top 1% of rich bastards. OK, may be approximate due to non-taxpaying rich bastards)
Just because the two sides are the same from our viewpoint doesn't mean that they aren't actually opposed in the one thing that matters to them, which is who is to be the master.
If you merely ignore the constitution, your enemies may use that against you; not because they have love of the constitution, but merely because they can. Interpreting it out of existence is both more permanent and less likely to rebound on you. Example: Having the cops beat the shit out of Occupy Wall Street protesters on camera. Sure, you can get away with it, but it could cause political damage. Better: Re-interpret the constitution so "freedom of assembly" means "assembly only in designated protest areas, for short periods of time". Then have the cops beat the shit out of the protesters not for protesting, but for protesting in the wrong place. You're just following the law, then.
You see electric powered bikes all over New York City as well, but one thing has nothing to do with another. An electric bike isn't intended as a car replacement, whereas the Aptera is.
It may be cowardice to give in to overwhelming force, but the other way doesn't work so well.
In Canada, and a very small number of US states, this is true. In most states, it is not.
This is, as far as I know, true in exactly one US state (Louisiana), and then only when you entered on yellow.
The part after the dash is legally what the yellow light means in most US states. It does not mean that you must stop if you are able (which is what it means in the exceptions), and it certainly doesn't, Jim Ignatowski aside, mean "slow down". Slowing down for a yellow without meaning to stop merely increases your chance of running the red.
Both are helpful, particularly with wide high-speed intersections. The extended red ("clearance interval") allows people who entered legally on yellow time to clear the intersection. The yellow ("change interval") gives people warning that the light is going to turn red, so they can prepare to stop if they are too far from the light. With a too-short yellow, drivers will be unable to stop in time to avoid running the red. With no intersection clearing interval, you have conflicts between vehicles approaching the fresh green and vehicles which entered on stale yellow.
OK, so banks get screwed, but charities get screwed too. Unless they're "donating" to the RIAA charity fund, this seems pretty evil in itself.
Because medical science is stalled. Whether because of super-evil drug companies, overly conservative regulatory regimes, a lack of funding for research, or some other cause, there really haven't been any major medical advances in a long time. Sure, you get constant stories about the next great thing... but then it never comes to fruition. When the most "Amazing" drug isn't a cure (or even a palliative) for any disease but rather a lifestyle drug which lowers a number on a blood test, you know there's not much going on.
Show me a drug which cures Alzheimers. Show me a cure for Type 1 diabetes, or celiac, or Parkinsons or Huntingdons. Or arthritis. Show me a new antibiotic that works on pandrug-resistant staph. Show me a cure for any viral infection, or even an effective palliative for the common cold.
They've probably figured that common power supplies designed for 240VAC can be run off 380VDC by bypassing the rectifier diodes. Doing the math gets you 340V, but maybe they've looked at the actual devices available or in common use.
Sure, taking inefficiencies out of the system is good for the system overall. But just as broken windows put money in the pockets of glaziers, your hamburger-man is out of a job. Wealth can have increased overall even if your hamburger-man quietly starves to death.
First you'd have to solve two economic realities:
1) 1 person working 40 hours is more productive than two people working 20, in many cases.
2) 1 person working 40 hours costs less than two people working 20. A lot less. Overhead per employee is enormously large in the US.
You're making two very poor assumptions; one, that factory worker's wages in the US are merely twice that of such wages in China. In fact, they are far more than that; an electronics assembler at Foxconn in China now makes $290 a _month_, whereas a US assembler would make about $11 an hour. And you can bet the Foxconn assembler is working more than 40 hours a week. Until recently that assembler in China made $130/month.
Two, that the percentage of cost which goes towards labor remains stable as costs change. A product made in China has much lower labor costs as a percentage of total costs than a similar product made in the US. This means a small increase in US wages will have a greater impact in the total cost of the product than a small increase (or sometimes, even a large one) in Chinese wages.
Isn't Wikipedia prior art for that?
You do understand that they
a) Know damn well you didn't "misunderstand" and
b) Don't care that you have proof otherwise.
When they're saying that you "misunderstood", they are asserting that they have power over you and they can bend you to their will whatever the facts are. Reality does not matter. If you are actually so impolitic as to bring up proof otherwise, they will have to either admit they were bluffing, or use the power they have. Neither bodes well for any future relationship.
Sorry, King writes from the anxiety closet; pipe dreams are under the bed.
For politically incorrect sources of energy, you take all the direct costs. Then you add in the costs of regulation (never mind that they're largely already included in the price). Then you add in some amount you made up to cover conventional pollution. Then you add a bunch more to cover CO2. Then you add in the cost of any military presence you can, by logic chains strong or tenuous, connect to oil. Then you add in the cost of road congestion, lung disease, oil worker pensions, and anything else you can come up with. Then you double all this to provide a margin of error.
For politically correct sources of energy, you take the current costs (ignoring the huge direct subsidies and the fact that the providers are losing money anyway), and project them downward for technological improvement.
And still it's a close call.
The first transcontinental railroad took less than 10 years to build -- considerably less. Before doing something like this, figure out why the hell it's going to take 30 years, and fix that first.