I don't understand what you're saying about the mechanism, and mechanistic grounds, etc. Maybe you could explain that. But I do understand this part:
Your argument makes just as much sense as: "Your newly passed a law saying I have to be licensed to practice medicine is infringing on my right to free expression, and I used to do that, so this is ex post facto!" That is different because that law would say "everyone must be licensed in order to practice medicine". This obviously has nothing to do the commission of any crime, which is what we're talking about here.
Finally, would it be constitutional to pass a law that says convicted felons can never be released from prison? If not, how is that different from banning them from owning guns after the fact, except in degree? If so, what country do you live in?;-)
I wouldn't be so sure. Our military doesn't seem to be having an easy time with the insurgencies we're already fighting. What makes you think they'll fare better fighting within the US, against US citizens, whom (I hope) its members really don't want to be killing?
So why couldn't I just include a 100MB data file with my decompressor Because the data file would be included as part of your compressed file size, so you would end up with, at best, zero compression.
It seems to me you're conflating computer programming with program execution. My programming seldom involves me doing any math at all. Even when it is doing math, it's generally nothing more arduous than very simple algebra. When the program runs, there could be lots of math taking place, but that doesn't have any effect on the writing of the program. And I am deeply offended at the suggestion that I write VB.;-)
* 25 year jail and a $2M fine for those who use spammers.... The reason spammers do it isn't just because it can make money, but because they know they can get away with it. The chance of getting prosecuted at the moment is next to nothing. Give them a fair chance of getting imprisoned, and they'll change their tune. Your suggested solution is inconsistent with the stated problem. I think you got the problem right and the solution wrong. There are already pretty stiff penalties for large-scale spam, but there's been, what - one conviction? They're sure they won't get caught, so increasing a penalty that they don't believe will be enforced against them would not be effective. Instead, actually catching and convicting them is the only way to stop it from a legal angle.
Actually I realized that it's the pressure inside the tank that would matter anyway. I would think fuel tanks (both the ones fueling the vehicle and the ones transporting the fuel) would be sealed to prevent explosive vapors from escaping, so the exterior pressure wouldn't matter anyway.
I don't know that anybody could argue that the decision is legally incorrect, rather that that fact in itself is the problem. When the executive branch can institute a secret apparently illegal wiretap program, and Congress won't do anything about it, and we the people can't sue about it, then that means the executive can do pretty much anything they want without any checks, as long as they can ensure that they're able to invoke state secrets. If we had a legislature with some balls this wouldn't be such a serious problem, but that has only changed slightly since the Democrats took power, as far as I can tell.
Well, I'm not sure you're not joking.... first, Michigan isn't exactly your mountainous state. It's probably a bit higher than LA, but average elevation is I think pretty low. Second, what difference does that make? I don't believe gasoline expands and contracts with changes in elevation. Otherwise your gas gauge would do some strange things driving across Colorado (which it doesn't).
Oh of course!:-) It occurred to me that OP is talking about the heat issue, and assuming that the gasoline gets colder and thus more dense as it is shipped north. Generally I suppose that would be the case, though if I were in Michigan and buying gas from Louisiana I think I would stipulate that it leave Louisiana in the early morning hours.:-)
And, they get to put an Apple device into a market that MS hasn't been able to penetrate very well (yet). What market is that? Microsoft is all over the US smartphone market.
But aren't you just making up numbers? Don't you think ATT and Apple didn't just make up numbers and instead did research to find out what would use less power?
I'm offended at the implication that faith is involved in science in any way, shape, or form. I think the only way faith is involved in science is in the assumption that the future will be like the past was. I think all of science rests on that untestable assumption. Whether you want to call that faith or not I don't know.
Perhaps you'd prefer the word "bundled". Regardless, the meaning is the same. bundle: to offer or supply (related products or services) in a single transaction at one all-inclusive price.
discount: 1. to deduct a certain amount from (a bill, charge, etc.)
2. to offer for sale or sell at a reduced price
Those don't look like the same meaning to me.
Ie: the price for _just_ an iPhone is infinite. If by "infinite price" you mean "not for sale" then yes.
Regardless of the euphamism you want to use, the iPhone is locked into a contract and, hence, it's actual price is obfuscated. The price is $500 or $600, depending on which kind you get.
* No alternative (How else can you get an iPhone ? No pay as you go plans.) This actually doesn't have any bearing on current customers since you cannot get an iPhone yet, by any means.
* Little alternative (Can't afford the phone up-front, have to pay it off monthly on a contract.) I went and found a prepaid plan (no contract) with a $10 phone. And that was just the first phone listed on the first plan I picked.
* Artificially skewed pricing models (same call patterns on a pay-as-you-go plan costs 3x as much as on a contract) So basically you're saying customers get a contract because it gives them the best price. How is that a problem? It's just like signing a 12-month lease on an apartment often gives you a better price than renting month-to-month - but I don't hear people complaining about that for some reason.
* Stupidity (Sure, I'll be happy to sign on for 3 years, just gimme the phone. [time passes] What's that ? You're doubling your rates just like the contract allows you to ?) Yes, it would be stupid to agree to such a contract.
I think most people, at best, _tolerate_ the contract they're on. Have you ever met anyone of reasoanble intelligence who, all else being equal, would prefer to be tied to a fixed-length contract for a given service or be able to move between providers at will ? Nice strawman. I'm sure you're aware that all else is not in fact equal.
but in Australia Ah, there we go. I've heard outside of the US the market is very different. I don't like the caller pays thing, but there's a lot more competition, isn't there? That can only be a good thing.
If there is no other price that gets discounted, then how can you call it a discount? It's only a discount if it's less than the retail price. In this case there is no other price. So no discount. If they later start selling it with no contract requirement and a higher price, *then* the contract price will be a discount. But right now there's no discount, only a single price with an accompanying contract requirement.
And if customers hate the idea of contracts so much, why do so many of them sign up? Do you think most cell customers hate the contract they're on, but put up with it for the discounted phone? I'm not saying you're wrong because I doubt either of us have numbers, but I would guess there are a lot of them (like me) who aren't planning to change carriers anyway, so give up nothing in exchange for a hardware discount. Could be Apple thinks the same thing - that the requirement for a contract isn't going to significantly slow iPhone sales.
I'll cry a lot less when my $120 phone goes into the swimming pool/toilet/stolen then I will when something happens to my $600 iPhone. And that's with contract -- wonder what they'll charge you to get one at "full price" once you are already under contract? The $600 price is with no discount for signing a contract, that is full retail price. Apple has stated there will be no discount for a contract - it's just that they won't sell the phone without a contract at any price.
Cars with double transmissions are now becoming more common. Since each transmission works on gearing not provided by the other, so that there's always a smooth switchover, and since transmissions can have up to 6 gears these days, that gives you an effective 12-gear system if you do it right. Coming back to this after yesterday, sorry if it's old news. I think the transmissions you're thinking of are primarily from the VW group. These are not two transmissions, but one transmission with two clutches. Same number of gear ratios, but faster and smoother shifts under most circumstances. And there are 7-speed automatics (these dual-clutch transmissions are mechanically manual transmissions but could be given more gears since there's no shift lever) on the market, with rumors of 8-speeds coming.
Continuous gearing would be better, but that has never been made effective. There are also CVTs on the market right now. I don't know what your criteria are for "effective", but they work.
That argument is a fallacy. How would we ever hear about a crime that never happened? The question is, if there were no police, would there be more crimes, fewer crimes, or the same number of crimes? I think it's obvious there would be more crimes, especially in light of what we saw after Hurricane Katrina when there were no police. Throw in other lawless situations around the world too. But maybe you disagree.
When "renewable" no longer actually means "able to be renewed," then... what word WOULD you use for that purpose? And when "renewable" DOES get used to mean "abundantly available" (as in solar, wind, or hydro - none of which require renewing!), what word WOULD you use to mean that in other contexts? Mom made a really big pot of pasta tonight, more than we can eat, so... the spaghetti dinner is renewable? You're missing the meaning. "Renewable" isn't being used to mean there's a lot of it. It's being used to mean there is practically an actually or potentially limitless supply of it for the future. Trees, for example. Use one tree, plant a tree, you've renewed the resource. Solar: convert some solar energy to electricity, and there is automatically more solar energy arriving the next day. The point is not that there are a lot of trees, or that there is a lot of sunlight. The point is the ongoing supply of them - the resource is (or can be) continually *renewed*. If your mom's pot continually produced more spaghetti without having to go to the store (such as the sun produces light), then yeah it's a renewable dinner. Oil - not renewable, because there's a finite supply of it. If oil were being spontaneously produced in the earth, then it would be a renewable resource, regardless of whether there were a lot or a little.
Whether plants and sunlight should be referred to with the same word, since one requires work from us and the other does not, is another question. And the technology being discussed here is clearly not renewable energy.
Yes, I'm sure you have a gun, etc etc. But it's a totally different situation if you actually expect to be attacked on a regular basis. And if that is your situation, I'm curious where you live and how you deal with it. I have never even faced the decision of whether to fight predatory criminals or kowtow to them, and IMO this is largely due to the known presence of a police force where I live. There are other factors of course. Having guns is fine. Not needing guns is better, by far.
You don't need anyone to be organized to resist a gang. You just need a populace with enough backbone (and hardware) to refuse to provide any victims. Criminals like easy targets and don't enjoy sticking their necks out any more than anyone else. That is true, if everyone (or most everyone) is willing to risk death on a daily basis to fight against organized crime, then it will not be worthwhile. That doesn't seem likely. And it certainly doesn't sound like anywhere I want to live.
Also, I should point out that government actively encourages organized crime. Alcohol Prohibition, The War On (some) Drugs, Gun Control, Tarrifs, Taxes. These are the things that organized crime thrives on. If you're saying that's a side effect, yes. If you're saying the government intentionally, knowingly, purposely has a goal of encouraging organized crime, then you'll have to provide a little more evidence. My tinfoil hat is not quite that thick.:-)
Without the government's artificial manipulation of market dynamics there wouldn't be any profit in 90% of the business that organized criminals indulge in. So they would do something else. Like periodically go to the grocery store where you do business and just take some of their money. That sounds pretty profitable, until as you say the populace resists en masse.
Gangs don't start out big and powerful. They need to be nipped in the bud. Either way they don't go away until they're forced to. Quite right. And one death by gunshot wound is not likely to nip a gang of any size. If it were that easy there would be no gangs. You would need a larger, well-armed, organized group to go after the gang. Such as a police force or another gang.
I guess it's a good thing we have a government and organized crime doesn't exist. I guess you're trying to make it seem like I said any time there's a government that means there will be zero organized crime. I hope I misunderstand you, because I said no such thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because the ostensible target of the investigations (terrorists) is a legitimate target does not mean the investigations are not a witch hunt.
Finally, would it be constitutional to pass a law that says convicted felons can never be released from prison? If not, how is that different from banning them from owning guns after the fact, except in degree? If so, what country do you live in?
I wouldn't be so sure. Our military doesn't seem to be having an easy time with the insurgencies we're already fighting. What makes you think they'll fare better fighting within the US, against US citizens, whom (I hope) its members really don't want to be killing?
It sounds like the contest required the resulting file to include the decompression program, so maybe the organizers thought of that too. :-)
It seems to me you're conflating computer programming with program execution. My programming seldom involves me doing any math at all. Even when it is doing math, it's generally nothing more arduous than very simple algebra. When the program runs, there could be lots of math taking place, but that doesn't have any effect on the writing of the program. And I am deeply offended at the suggestion that I write VB. ;-)
This reminds me of the saying that AI is anything computers can't do well yet, and everything they can already do well is "just programming".
Actually I realized that it's the pressure inside the tank that would matter anyway. I would think fuel tanks (both the ones fueling the vehicle and the ones transporting the fuel) would be sealed to prevent explosive vapors from escaping, so the exterior pressure wouldn't matter anyway.
I don't know that anybody could argue that the decision is legally incorrect, rather that that fact in itself is the problem. When the executive branch can institute a secret apparently illegal wiretap program, and Congress won't do anything about it, and we the people can't sue about it, then that means the executive can do pretty much anything they want without any checks, as long as they can ensure that they're able to invoke state secrets. If we had a legislature with some balls this wouldn't be such a serious problem, but that has only changed slightly since the Democrats took power, as far as I can tell.
Well, I'm not sure you're not joking.... first, Michigan isn't exactly your mountainous state. It's probably a bit higher than LA, but average elevation is I think pretty low. Second, what difference does that make? I don't believe gasoline expands and contracts with changes in elevation. Otherwise your gas gauge would do some strange things driving across Colorado (which it doesn't).
Oh of course! :-) It occurred to me that OP is talking about the heat issue, and assuming that the gasoline gets colder and thus more dense as it is shipped north. Generally I suppose that would be the case, though if I were in Michigan and buying gas from Louisiana I think I would stipulate that it leave Louisiana in the early morning hours. :-)
What missing gasoline?
But aren't you just making up numbers? Don't you think ATT and Apple didn't just make up numbers and instead did research to find out what would use less power?
discount: 1. to deduct a certain amount from (a bill, charge, etc.) 2. to offer for sale or sell at a reduced price
Those don't look like the same meaning to me. Ie: the price for _just_ an iPhone is infinite. If by "infinite price" you mean "not for sale" then yes. Regardless of the euphamism you want to use, the iPhone is locked into a contract and, hence, it's actual price is obfuscated. The price is $500 or $600, depending on which kind you get. * No alternative (How else can you get an iPhone ? No pay as you go plans.) This actually doesn't have any bearing on current customers since you cannot get an iPhone yet, by any means. * Little alternative (Can't afford the phone up-front, have to pay it off monthly on a contract.) I went and found a prepaid plan (no contract) with a $10 phone. And that was just the first phone listed on the first plan I picked. * Artificially skewed pricing models (same call patterns on a pay-as-you-go plan costs 3x as much as on a contract) So basically you're saying customers get a contract because it gives them the best price. How is that a problem? It's just like signing a 12-month lease on an apartment often gives you a better price than renting month-to-month - but I don't hear people complaining about that for some reason. * Stupidity (Sure, I'll be happy to sign on for 3 years, just gimme the phone. [time passes] What's that ? You're doubling your rates just like the contract allows you to ?) Yes, it would be stupid to agree to such a contract. I think most people, at best, _tolerate_ the contract they're on. Have you ever met anyone of reasoanble intelligence who, all else being equal, would prefer to be tied to a fixed-length contract for a given service or be able to move between providers at will ? Nice strawman. I'm sure you're aware that all else is not in fact equal. but in Australia Ah, there we go. I've heard outside of the US the market is very different. I don't like the caller pays thing, but there's a lot more competition, isn't there? That can only be a good thing.
If there is no other price that gets discounted, then how can you call it a discount? It's only a discount if it's less than the retail price. In this case there is no other price. So no discount. If they later start selling it with no contract requirement and a higher price, *then* the contract price will be a discount. But right now there's no discount, only a single price with an accompanying contract requirement.
And if customers hate the idea of contracts so much, why do so many of them sign up? Do you think most cell customers hate the contract they're on, but put up with it for the discounted phone? I'm not saying you're wrong because I doubt either of us have numbers, but I would guess there are a lot of them (like me) who aren't planning to change carriers anyway, so give up nothing in exchange for a hardware discount. Could be Apple thinks the same thing - that the requirement for a contract isn't going to significantly slow iPhone sales.
That argument is a fallacy. How would we ever hear about a crime that never happened? The question is, if there were no police, would there be more crimes, fewer crimes, or the same number of crimes? I think it's obvious there would be more crimes, especially in light of what we saw after Hurricane Katrina when there were no police. Throw in other lawless situations around the world too. But maybe you disagree.
Whether plants and sunlight should be referred to with the same word, since one requires work from us and the other does not, is another question. And the technology being discussed here is clearly not renewable energy.
Yes, I'm sure you have a gun, etc etc. But it's a totally different situation if you actually expect to be attacked on a regular basis. And if that is your situation, I'm curious where you live and how you deal with it. I have never even faced the decision of whether to fight predatory criminals or kowtow to them, and IMO this is largely due to the known presence of a police force where I live. There are other factors of course. Having guns is fine. Not needing guns is better, by far.