That may limit the damage these things do when they hit something, but I suspect it'll dramatically increase the damage caused by irate drivers that get stuck behind one.
13k comments on Daily Kos? Holy smokes -- I could be excused for thinking she spends all her spare time posting around here. That Icelandic government job must be cherry indeed.
Days I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with Jim on something make me fear the Apocalypse has finally arrived, but what the hey... pass the popcorn. I've been waiting a long time for reality to catch up to this modern-day Music Man.
And time and again, claims of socialism have been used to distract from actual actions which are not socialist. That doesn't reflect on socialism even slightly.
You can stop hiding the ball any time you're ready. What, exactly, is the One True Socialism(TM), how, exactly, does it differ from the scores of failed efforts that misguided souls have called socialism, and what, exactly, is the basis (beyond "this time for sure, Rocky!" wide-eyed optimism) for saying it can be implemented successfully in the face of those failures?
Friend, what we both know is that you're contenting yourself to pick around the edges rather than simply addressing the issue at the core of my original post: what, exactly, is the flavor of socialism that is so blindingly obviously going to make the world a utopia; why, exactly, has that flavor somehow mysteriously managed to elude every single group that has tried to put it in place; and what, exactly, is going to change in the future to produce different results the next time around?
I pay $100/mo for mine and by all accounts it costs somewhere between $9-$13 (depending on who you ask, since you can only get an estimate out of their SEC filings these days)
There you go again. Are you ready to provide quotes of actual language from actual SEC filings that say anything vaguely resembling that proposition? It's a good thing I haven't been holding my breath all this time.
Today we have switched on 5G-capable sites on the Gold Coast, which enable us to test 5G pre-commercial devices in real world conditions... It also means we can connect compatible commercial 5G devices for customers in 5G areas as they become available
does it make financial sense to spend a significant number of man-hours trying to uncover those non-obvious instances of welfare fraud?
It's more than just dollars spent vs. dollars recovered for the cases you find -- you have to factor in the deterrent effect you get from noisily making examples of the ones you find and thus increasing the known risk of playing the system.
A variation of the attack requires the attacker to be on the same network as the patient monitoring client in order to ARP spoof the central monitoring station.
The attacker can pose as the central monitoring station, capture data sent by the actual patient monitoring equipment, and then send falsified patient data to the real central monitoring station.
This second attack scenario works in real-time and is feasible because of the insecure design of the Rwhat protocol used by some medical equipment to send data from patient monitors to central stations via WiFi or wired connections —the protocol relying on simple unencrypted UDP packets sent between the client and server, packets that can be easily spoofed and modified.
From your fine citation: "Self-identification is the only criterion used by the list, therefore the list includes all countries that have claimed to be Socialist, even if their claims are disputed." Your citation of that list is intended to be a waste of time.
Actually, that just further illustrates my point: armchair quarterbacks like the OP and the above Wiki editors engaging in labeling games vs. those who have actually tried (and repeatedly failed) to implement socialistic societies.
Care to make a good-faith effort?
To do what? Certainly the onus is on the one saying "not a single one of the dozens of failed experiments called socialism by their founders was Real Socialism(TM)" to explain why.
And there we are. He clearly spent the last few days holed up with his lawyers trying to figure out the best way to perfume this pig, but thus far the market doesn't seem thrilled with the story. He basically admits that "funding secured" was just his own spin on a verbal, aspirational conversation with the managing director of the Saudi sovereign wealth fund, and that in fact the fund had not yet committed to the transaction when he tweeted:
Following the August 7th announcement, I have continued to communicate with the Managing Director of the Saudi fund. He has expressed support for proceeding subject to financial and other due diligence and their internal review process for obtaining approvals.
I'm generally a classic butter and salt kind of guy, but the fallout from this could go on long enough that I may throw in an occasional batch of caramel corn for variety. Stay tuned....
There's thousands of individuals, many thousands of funds, and tens of thousands of companies worldwide which could plausibly be parties to such a buyout. To anyone who wants to exhaust the list: you've got a lot of phone calls to make; better get started.
Why bother when Musk has to disclose exactly who it was who had actually committed sufficient funding for the deal at the time he sent the tweet (and whoever he says it was then has to confirm it actually was them) for him to avoid fines, potential jail time, and a flood of civil lawsuits? Much less effort just to sit back and pop some popcorn.
I actually was the parent -- apparently one of the many things you didn't notice.
The link I provided does indeed say China had a birthrate of 2.6 thirty years ago. Today's alleged birthrate of 1.6 (under which, mysteriously, China's population nonetheless continues to increase per the stats you posted) is irrelevant to today's migratory pressures for reasons I explained.
If you're not going to bother reading either the data I linked or even my post, there doesn't seem to be much point in you responding other than to hear yourself talk. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
In the new study everyone was more likely to survive if they saw a female physician
Second proposition:
The researchers divided 500,000-plus cases into four categories: male doctors treating men; male doctors treating women; female doctors treating men; and female doctors treating women. "All of those are statistically indistinguishable except for male doctor -- female patient," says Brad Greenwood, an author on the study
Since the second is apparently from an author, I'd tend to guess the first is "journalistic flair" (ahem) from someone carrying around a gender hammer. Unfortunately can't look at the study itself to confirm -- the link in TFS is actually to the AHA 2016 statement and the actual study is paywalled.
Slashdot Mirror
People complaining about shit doesn't mean that shit ain't workin'.
So people complaining about the current executive pay scale doesn't mean it's not working, right?
That may limit the damage these things do when they hit something, but I suspect it'll dramatically increase the damage caused by irate drivers that get stuck behind one.
Putting aside whether it's real, TFP claims superconductivity occurs at 236K = ~35 below zero in whichever temperature scale suits your fancy.
That's a bit nippy for my taste.
13k comments on Daily Kos? Holy smokes -- I could be excused for thinking she spends all her spare time posting around here. That Icelandic government job must be cherry indeed.
This always-musk-defending Rei? https://slashdot.org/~Rei
how do you know is really a she?
She doesn't exactly leave a light digital footprint. See, for example, here.
entirely vapidand . . . you seem to be confusing worth socialism . . . you can do much better than am augment
Definitely the most cogent thing you've said in this exchange. Maybe drinking and posting is your sweet spot -- debate certainly isn't.
Days I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with Jim on something make me fear the Apocalypse has finally arrived, but what the hey... pass the popcorn. I've been waiting a long time for reality to catch up to this modern-day Music Man.
And time and again, claims of socialism have been used to distract from actual actions which are not socialist. That doesn't reflect on socialism even slightly.
You can stop hiding the ball any time you're ready. What, exactly, is the One True Socialism(TM), how, exactly, does it differ from the scores of failed efforts that misguided souls have called socialism, and what, exactly, is the basis (beyond "this time for sure, Rocky!" wide-eyed optimism) for saying it can be implemented successfully in the face of those failures?
Friend, what we both know is that you're contenting yourself to pick around the edges rather than simply addressing the issue at the core of my original post: what, exactly, is the flavor of socialism that is so blindingly obviously going to make the world a utopia; why, exactly, has that flavor somehow mysteriously managed to elude every single group that has tried to put it in place; and what, exactly, is going to change in the future to produce different results the next time around?
And we both know the reason for that.
I pay $100/mo for mine and by all accounts it costs somewhere between $9-$13 (depending on who you ask, since you can only get an estimate out of their SEC filings these days)
There you go again. Are you ready to provide quotes of actual language from actual SEC filings that say anything vaguely resembling that proposition? It's a good thing I haven't been holding my breath all this time.
Don't just paste it -- read it:
Today we have switched on 5G-capable sites on the Gold Coast, which enable us to test 5G pre-commercial devices in real world conditions ... It also means we can connect compatible commercial 5G devices for customers in 5G areas as they become available
does it make financial sense to spend a significant number of man-hours trying to uncover those non-obvious instances of welfare fraud?
It's more than just dollars spent vs. dollars recovered for the cases you find -- you have to factor in the deterrent effect you get from noisily making examples of the ones you find and thus increasing the known risk of playing the system.
Lol the list of self-declared socialist states.
Ah, so the only way to have a true socialist state is not to call it socialist. Now it all makes sense.
Agree that one's lame, but keep reading:
A variation of the attack requires the attacker to be on the same network as the patient monitoring client in order to ARP spoof the central monitoring station.
The attacker can pose as the central monitoring station, capture data sent by the actual patient monitoring equipment, and then send falsified patient data to the real central monitoring station.
This second attack scenario works in real-time and is feasible because of the insecure design of the Rwhat protocol used by some medical equipment to send data from patient monitors to central stations via WiFi or wired connections —the protocol relying on simple unencrypted UDP packets sent between the client and server, packets that can be easily spoofed and modified.
From your fine citation: "Self-identification is the only criterion used by the list, therefore the list includes all countries that have claimed to be Socialist, even if their claims are disputed." Your citation of that list is intended to be a waste of time.
Actually, that just further illustrates my point: armchair quarterbacks like the OP and the above Wiki editors engaging in labeling games vs. those who have actually tried (and repeatedly failed) to implement socialistic societies.
Care to make a good-faith effort?
To do what? Certainly the onus is on the one saying "not a single one of the dozens of failed experiments called socialism by their founders was Real Socialism(TM)" to explain why.
It hasn't been tried many times.
I'll take "oh, THAT wasn't really socialism" for $500, Alex. Start working your way down the list -- I'll wait.
And there we are. He clearly spent the last few days holed up with his lawyers trying to figure out the best way to perfume this pig, but thus far the market doesn't seem thrilled with the story. He basically admits that "funding secured" was just his own spin on a verbal, aspirational conversation with the managing director of the Saudi sovereign wealth fund, and that in fact the fund had not yet committed to the transaction when he tweeted:
Following the August 7th announcement , I have continued to communicate with the Managing Director of the Saudi fund. He has expressed support for proceeding subject to financial and other due diligence and their internal review process for obtaining approvals .
I'm generally a classic butter and salt kind of guy, but the fallout from this could go on long enough that I may throw in an occasional batch of caramel corn for variety. Stay tuned....
There's thousands of individuals, many thousands of funds, and tens of thousands of companies worldwide which could plausibly be parties to such a buyout. To anyone who wants to exhaust the list: you've got a lot of phone calls to make; better get started.
Why bother when Musk has to disclose exactly who it was who had actually committed sufficient funding for the deal at the time he sent the tweet (and whoever he says it was then has to confirm it actually was them) for him to avoid fines, potential jail time, and a flood of civil lawsuits? Much less effort just to sit back and pop some popcorn.
I actually was the parent -- apparently one of the many things you didn't notice.
The link I provided does indeed say China had a birthrate of 2.6 thirty years ago. Today's alleged birthrate of 1.6 (under which, mysteriously, China's population nonetheless continues to increase per the stats you posted) is irrelevant to today's migratory pressures for reasons I explained.
If you're not going to bother reading either the data I linked or even my post, there doesn't seem to be much point in you responding other than to hear yourself talk. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
I agree that Musk was probably just teasing the shorts. But Musk can say he's considering any thing he wants.
Maybe. But what he can't say is "funding secured" if it isn't.
Cool page of numbers. Any particular ones you wanted to point out?
First proposition:
In the new study everyone was more likely to survive if they saw a female physician
Second proposition:
The researchers divided 500,000-plus cases into four categories: male doctors treating men; male doctors treating women; female doctors treating men; and female doctors treating women. " All of those are statistically indistinguishable except for male doctor -- female patient ," says Brad Greenwood, an author on the study
Since the second is apparently from an author, I'd tend to guess the first is "journalistic flair" (ahem) from someone carrying around a gender hammer. Unfortunately can't look at the study itself to confirm -- the link in TFS is actually to the AHA 2016 statement and the actual study is paywalled.
Trade group representing carriers that would get more government money if Verizon exaggerated its coverage... says Verizon exaggerated its coverage.
Hmmm.
Yeah, if the world suddenly discovered there were only a few thousand LOCs behind my $16B market cap, I'd probably try to save face too.
One-child didn't start until about 1980, and there were a ton of exceptions. LMGTFY link omitted.