Those savings are insured too. You do realize that just about any bank anywhere can give you a loan? Also, banks are sitting tight on their hoards of cash in fear at the moment, so it's not like getting loans is easy anyway.
There have been bank panics before. That's what insurance is for. People who bought uninsured instruments knew they were taking a risk. When institutions fail, government should let them. After all, you don't want to privatize gains and socialize losses, do you.
Skeptic: "We don't know if the house is at 71F or 700F"
(There really is a factor of 10 between competing AGW theories)
Alarmist: "All I know is its too hot. Hoses. Now."
Sorry, that's not how science works. Each step of the analysis, each link of the chain needs to be checked and verified. One of the steps being wrong is quite sufficient to break the conclusion. One step that needs to be verified is the one that takes raw data and converts it into normalized data.
This is a bad idea. See for example Australia where the Greens won 5 seats out of 25, Labor and Liberals won 10 seats each. Now Greens have a lot of power because they can break a government simply by witholding support.
How is that a better representation?
I wonder if this is deliberate. Do they really want easy access and discussion on it ?
After all, discussion would mean potential criticism and we can't have that, can we.
You know I was about to write a rebuttal to the article when I noticed that the FCC had already done the job for me.
Too bad nobody actually bothered to read the FCC link because it wasn't in the/. summary.
Slashdot Mirror
next year's accident statistics are likely to be proportional to the number of cars/traffic/congestion no matter what.
But if you appear to be a paper tiger, the next attack will be an order of magnitude bigger.
Sure, but next year's accident statistics are likely to be proportional to the number of cars/traffic/congestion no matter what.
But if you appear to be a paper tiger, the next attack will be an order of magnitude bigger.
Nah, the terrorists didn't win, they got smashed in large numbers, by a completely disproportionate but necessary response.
Hmm, no. Car accident statistics dont get worse if you ignore them.
On the other hand ignoring something as big 9/11 would have emboldened OBL and invite him to make the next one even bigger...
It would have made us look like paper tigers. The appearance of weakness is the sort of thing that tempts our enemies to start wars.
We don't subsidize gas or the highway system, but europe taxes excessively. Infact gas and road taxes subsidize a lot of other things in the US.
Nope. Dedicated amateurs often do better than the professionals. http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/20/when-it-comes-to-forecasting-apples-earnings-amateurs-are-bett/
The professionals also tend to have blind spots ...
You're right, it does work for XP.
Those savings are insured too. You do realize that just about any bank anywhere can give you a loan? Also, banks are sitting tight on their hoards of cash in fear at the moment, so it's not like getting loans is easy anyway.
There have been bank panics before. That's what insurance is for. People who bought uninsured instruments knew they were taking a risk. When institutions fail, government should let them. After all, you don't want to privatize gains and socialize losses, do you.
Americans are insured by the FDIC (upto $500K), and there's lots of small banks and credit unions which could take up the slack.
Bad analogy, where is the solar boom? They've had many years of subsidies now.
Yay, even more tax dollars in subsidies!
Skeptic: "We don't know if the house is at 71F or 700F" (There really is a factor of 10 between competing AGW theories) Alarmist: "All I know is its too hot. Hoses. Now."
Or possibly build houses from the trees which will "sequester" all that carbon for a few decades at the least.
Only until IE10 is announced.
Building the world's tallest tower is usually followed by a recession. Oh, oh.
Sorry, that's not how science works. Each step of the analysis, each link of the chain needs to be checked and verified. One of the steps being wrong is quite sufficient to break the conclusion. One step that needs to be verified is the one that takes raw data and converts it into normalized data.
Instead, you would continue to pay exorbitant sums of money to government programs that progress at a glacial pace?
This is a bad idea. See for example Australia where the Greens won 5 seats out of 25, Labor and Liberals won 10 seats each. Now Greens have a lot of power because they can break a government simply by witholding support. How is that a better representation?
The bottom must be hell on bumps.
Don't forget, NASA is basically the only game in town for Aeronautics, if they blacklist you, you're out of luck.
1. I was thinking more of cultivated forests.
2. However, rainforests do grow back.
Neither the fluid flow people nor the high-temp metal people are asking for CO2 limits.
"by converting the wood to something more stable" Building houses with all that wood will work quite well.
I wonder if this is deliberate. Do they really want easy access and discussion on it ? After all, discussion would mean potential criticism and we can't have that, can we.
You know I was about to write a rebuttal to the article when I noticed that the FCC had already done the job for me. Too bad nobody actually bothered to read the FCC link because it wasn't in the /. summary.