Reason would only take you so far anyway. Instead of answering "why" once or twice, science enables mankind to answer it to 5 or 6 levels of depth. That level of knowledge has given most of us life (multiplying the carrying capacity of the planet by orders of magnitude) and allowed us to live better and longer lives, too. But there are no ultimate explanations. Any chain of logic (or causality) must either extend forever and ever, or stop at something that just "is," and both options are nonsensical. (This is equally true whether or not any of the links in the chain are God).
Just because some event happened there doesn't mean Newt Gingrich gets to decide that's the "real" meaning of the namesake. The Cordoba House developers said they were commemorating Cordoba as an homage to the city in Spain where Muslims, Jews, and Christians lived together centuries ago in the midst of religious foment (that's a quote from the New York Times).
In other words, some people did something, therefore some other people hundreds of years later on the other side of the planet should be held responsible.
By your reasoning, I assume you are firmly in favor of whites now paying slave reparations to African Americans. Also that adherents to the bible should be punished for the atrocities of the Old Testament (e.g. genocide).
Don't new TV's basically have "AppleTV" built in? Newer Sony TVs (and I imagine other brands) can stream from computer (DNLA), stream from Internet (including netflix, with Hulu joining next month), can play pictures/movies from USB storage... what else does AppleTV do?
But even after controlling for nearly all imaginable variables - socioeconomic status, level of physical activity, number of close friends, quality of social support and so on - the researchers (a six-member team led by psychologist Charles Holahan of the University of Texas at Austin) found that over a 20-year period, mortality rates were highest for those who had never been drinkers
Actually I have ooma so I don't pay anything for phone, except something like $9/year in taxes.
My point is, "one size fits all" pricing is a terrible deal for light users like myself, and decreases the value of the XBox 360 relative to other options (like the PS3).
My only online play is for one hour per week with my brother in another state. It's a bad deal for me, even at current rates. Why this even requires a paid subscription is a mystery to me, older games could "direct link" to a specific IP without paying anybody.
Why would it burn them up? There is no financial justification for porting Cleartype when they can just use for Freetype for their Mac version.
So you're saying there is no financial justification for using Microsoft software when you can just use free software because it's just as good? Gee, I would think Microsoft would be wide open to that rationale.
It would cool, if the Gates Foundation donated for Khan Academy, because as far as I know Khan is now burning his savings.
Seeking out people who are already doing great things on their own and then offering help is probably the only Gates can get any real work done; I'd imagine there's a deluge of people promising him the moon 2-3 years after they receive his "support," but 99% of them don't really have a vision.
Maybe, yes. BGP has been identified as vulnerable for a long time, and this is further proof. On the other hand, this research is probably motivated by fixing the problem. But the Internet is no longer something you can just shut down or reboot to upgrade; you must operate on a live patient. It does make you wonder, though, if well-intentioned people can do this trying to help, what somebody malicious could do. Hopefully governments will decline to use this as a weapon - like poisoning the ocean.
Capitalism flourishes in a republican government because it is based on the idea of the rights to property and liberty.
Plutocracy fits the description of "rights to property and liberty" just fine - moreso than democracy even, because political power is then just another type of property. And you still have the liberty to enjoy whatever rights your wealth can secure.
Democracy (and by that I just mean any system where votes actually matter) is a different thing. You are entitled to a vote, and each person gets exactly one vote. The idea that everybody is entitled to an equal amount of something (especially decision-making authority) flies in the face of capitalism. (Have you ever worked for a company that was run that way?) Thus there is tension between capitalism and democracy. We see that tension, for example, in the McCain/Feingold Campaign Reform Act. We see it in taxes, where Democracy empowers the poor to "steal from the rich." I think that tension is unavoidable, and it doesn't mean we should abolish capitalism as the primary controlling influence in our economy. But what this means is that there are tradeoffs, so making decisions based on equating capitalism and democracy (such as claiming whoever pays the most taxes should get proportional benefits of the law, which the State Senator did in this case) is dangerous to democracy.
Stories like this remind us that representative democracy (a form of government), isn't particularly tied to capitalism (an economic system). In fact, the pairing is counter-intuitive and occurred only relatively recently in history. Honestly, what self-respecting captain of industry believes they should share political power equally with the underclass! Even the authors of the Constitution lacked this vision; "in the eighteenth century, the right to cast a vote belonged largely to white, male property holders. Even John Adams, in 1776, opposed broadening the franchise." So, it is only something that has come about over time.
The type of government most similar to capitalism is not democracy but plutocracy, since that's what private companies are. It turns out that democracy and capitalism, though conflicted in some ways, are a very powerful combination. But if we neglect to uphold the separations between them, democracy will be lost.
The article doesn't, but the abstract of the actual paper says all participants (53,440 men and 69,776 women) were disease free at enrollment and the followup period was 14 years. Moreover they adjusted for smoking, body mass index, and "other factors." Too bad the full paper is behind a paywall. However the case for causation looks quite strong.
This is timely for me because just yesterday I just in an order for a DVI splitter, second monitor, keyboard and mouse to add a stand-up terminal on my work computer. You don't need a second computer, or a KVM, etc; linux handles a second USB/mouse as you would expect, and I'd imagine Windows is the same.
I ordered this because, even though I run daily, my back is starting to tire too easily. It's funny because I'm only in my mid-30s. I think it is my ergonomic chair, turning my back muscles to jelly. Now the only question is whether I will actually use the standup workstation.
Keep in mind, though, a fantastic number of aircraft did not make it home from WWI/WWII. In an situation involving millions of people, unlikely events (like landing a trashed plane) happen all the time. WWI aircraft might have been survivable against the puny ground threats of the time, but they had nothing like the titanium bathtub. They didn't even have parachutes! Quote: "World War I fighter pilots had a typical life expectancy of several weeks while flying in combat. Several weeks. Not much at all. In terms of flying hours, a combat pilot could count on 40 to 60 hours before being killed." Doesn't your definition of survivability include actually surviving?
Slashdot Mirror
Is that true? Can you really pay to have your trading computer in the same room as the actual stock exchange computers?
By analogy, shouldn't they be suing one Sariah Jones? Or Sarah Jonhannes?
Reason would only take you so far anyway. Instead of answering "why" once or twice, science enables mankind to answer it to 5 or 6 levels of depth. That level of knowledge has given most of us life (multiplying the carrying capacity of the planet by orders of magnitude) and allowed us to live better and longer lives, too. But there are no ultimate explanations. Any chain of logic (or causality) must either extend forever and ever, or stop at something that just "is," and both options are nonsensical. (This is equally true whether or not any of the links in the chain are God).
Just because some event happened there doesn't mean Newt Gingrich gets to decide that's the "real" meaning of the namesake. The Cordoba House developers said they were commemorating Cordoba as an homage to the city in Spain where Muslims, Jews, and Christians lived together centuries ago in the midst of religious foment (that's a quote from the New York Times).
The people behind the project never claimed it was a memorial to Muslim conquest; that's just spin invented by Newt Gingrich and his ilk.
By your reasoning, I assume you are firmly in favor of whites now paying slave reparations to African Americans. Also that adherents to the bible should be punished for the atrocities of the Old Testament (e.g. genocide).
And how Muslims in NYC feel when people try to punish them for 9/11.
Don't new TV's basically have "AppleTV" built in? Newer Sony TVs (and I imagine other brands) can stream from computer (DNLA), stream from Internet (including netflix, with Hulu joining next month), can play pictures/movies from USB storage... what else does AppleTV do?
You have to be careful reading that much into a particular word when working between languages. (Translation issues are a bonanza for inciting war).
Eh? Without government testing of fuel efficiency, there would be no reliable information to go by at all.
My point is, "one size fits all" pricing is a terrible deal for light users like myself, and decreases the value of the XBox 360 relative to other options (like the PS3).
My only online play is for one hour per week with my brother in another state. It's a bad deal for me, even at current rates. Why this even requires a paid subscription is a mystery to me, older games could "direct link" to a specific IP without paying anybody.
So you're saying there is no financial justification for using Microsoft software when you can just use free software because it's just as good? Gee, I would think Microsoft would be wide open to that rationale.
Also amdcccle while we're at it. (Yes, that's the correct number of c's... I think).
I use an ooma device for VOIP; as far as I know, Comcast doesn't prioritize that, and it works OK.
Seeking out people who are already doing great things on their own and then offering help is probably the only Gates can get any real work done; I'd imagine there's a deluge of people promising him the moon 2-3 years after they receive his "support," but 99% of them don't really have a vision.
Maybe, yes. BGP has been identified as vulnerable for a long time, and this is further proof. On the other hand, this research is probably motivated by fixing the problem. But the Internet is no longer something you can just shut down or reboot to upgrade; you must operate on a live patient. It does make you wonder, though, if well-intentioned people can do this trying to help, what somebody malicious could do. Hopefully governments will decline to use this as a weapon - like poisoning the ocean.
Plutocracy fits the description of "rights to property and liberty" just fine - moreso than democracy even, because political power is then just another type of property. And you still have the liberty to enjoy whatever rights your wealth can secure.
Democracy (and by that I just mean any system where votes actually matter) is a different thing. You are entitled to a vote, and each person gets exactly one vote. The idea that everybody is entitled to an equal amount of something (especially decision-making authority) flies in the face of capitalism. (Have you ever worked for a company that was run that way?) Thus there is tension between capitalism and democracy. We see that tension, for example, in the McCain/Feingold Campaign Reform Act. We see it in taxes, where Democracy empowers the poor to "steal from the rich." I think that tension is unavoidable, and it doesn't mean we should abolish capitalism as the primary controlling influence in our economy. But what this means is that there are tradeoffs, so making decisions based on equating capitalism and democracy (such as claiming whoever pays the most taxes should get proportional benefits of the law, which the State Senator did in this case) is dangerous to democracy.
Stories like this remind us that representative democracy (a form of government), isn't particularly tied to capitalism (an economic system). In fact, the pairing is counter-intuitive and occurred only relatively recently in history. Honestly, what self-respecting captain of industry believes they should share political power equally with the underclass! Even the authors of the Constitution lacked this vision; "in the eighteenth century, the right to cast a vote belonged largely to white, male property holders. Even John Adams, in 1776, opposed broadening the franchise." So, it is only something that has come about over time.
The type of government most similar to capitalism is not democracy but plutocracy, since that's what private companies are. It turns out that democracy and capitalism, though conflicted in some ways, are a very powerful combination. But if we neglect to uphold the separations between them, democracy will be lost.
The article doesn't, but the abstract of the actual paper says all participants (53,440 men and 69,776 women) were disease free at enrollment and the followup period was 14 years. Moreover they adjusted for smoking, body mass index, and "other factors." Too bad the full paper is behind a paywall. However the case for causation looks quite strong.
I ordered this because, even though I run daily, my back is starting to tire too easily. It's funny because I'm only in my mid-30s. I think it is my ergonomic chair, turning my back muscles to jelly. Now the only question is whether I will actually use the standup workstation.
Keep in mind, though, a fantastic number of aircraft did not make it home from WWI/WWII. In an situation involving millions of people, unlikely events (like landing a trashed plane) happen all the time. WWI aircraft might have been survivable against the puny ground threats of the time, but they had nothing like the titanium bathtub. They didn't even have parachutes! Quote: "World War I fighter pilots had a typical life expectancy of several weeks while flying in combat. Several weeks. Not much at all. In terms of flying hours, a combat pilot could count on 40 to 60 hours before being killed." Doesn't your definition of survivability include actually surviving?
So, what are the limitations of this approach? Why are bird strikes still a problem?
Too true! 1 2