I have yet to see an academic class (here I exclude shop and home ec) before college that needs anything but a teacher, textbooks and a classroom. If weather is good the classroom is optional, and in many cases either the teacher or the textbook is optional. Microscopes rarely extend beyond 5 minutes of "ooh, that's cool" and go back into the locked closet for another year.
I've personally seen and done things which require explanation as the rational explanation doesn't work
Taken to its root and with full understanding, all things which are properly explained are rationally explained.
That's not to say that people can't act irrationally, but that when they do the reasons for their behavior are subject to rational analysis on some low level, such as molecular.
If I say to you "I won't stop you from beating up that girl over there?" does that make it OK when you go and beat her? Is it then wrong if I change my mind and stop you?
I would hardly call the price of Kevlar fabric cheap. It's 4 or more times the price of fiberglass.
Your point stands however. The Kevlar in an underwater cable would be thin strips and possibly impregnated with epoxy: useless for resale.
Why do religious people consider "god fearing" to be a compliment? According to them, god is good and just; a person who fears god must be an evil person expecting divine retribution.
Given the birth rate difference between atheists versus religious people, how exactly do you atheists hope to prevent a complete Christian takeover in 20 years or so ?
Alas, population trends indicate that the future holds a fate hideously worse than Christian dominance or even an increase in atheists: takeover by the religion of murder and ignorance, Islam.
An Agnostic believes that knowledge of the existence of god does not exist (and may not be possible). It does not imply either belief or non-belief. It derives from "a" meaning not, and "gignoskein" meaning "to know".
That's a form of "Pascal's Wager", and it has 2 severe flaws:
It is the argument of a coward
The penalty for believing in god includes servility, increased difficulty understanding just about anything, and wasting time and money in worship.
Precisely. And as soon as a theist provides a full, conventional, nontrivial definition of a god, he contradicts himself. Furthermore, if the thing he attempts to describe could exist, it would be unworthy of worship.
Those who have bothered to spend some time studying atheism have come across a distinction: there are those called "positive atheists" who claim that no god exists, and "negative" or "weak" atheists who do not believe in god. Further refinements are possible, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism
Yahoo has a profit of almost $4e9 a year on revenue of $5e9 a year: profit margin 79%. However, revenue is up less than 2% vs a year ago (negative accounting for inflation) and profit is down 8%.
Simply, they're losing ground and have oodles of money ($4e9 at the moment) to turn things in the right direction.
Whether a wise acquisition could help their future is unclear. If they buy good people will they destroy them? Or will the people destroy Yahoo's current executives, like the Scully-Apple-Jobs fiasco?
Yahoo has enough money to buy Advanced Micro Devices and put AMD on firm financial ground (for a while, at least.) Would that be wise?
Keynes argued that the solution to the Great Depression was to stimulate the economy ("inducement to invest") through some combination of two approaches:
A reduction in interest rates (monetary policy), and
Government investment in infrastructure (fiscal policy).
Both of those are mistaken policies. First, the government shouldn't be position to influence interest rates: when it does, it distorts the market, resulting in misallocation of resources and thence to failure of businesses. Second, government investment in infrastructure guarantees development of inefficient and misplaced projects, because decisions are made politically with no intention of them being useful for human purposes (= profitable).
The shift under Clinton to short term borrowing was one of the few things he did right. Interest rates were falling and were lower than long-term rates, and looked to stay that way for the foreseeable future. It saved the gov't money and in principle provided an incentive to behave responsibly.
Keynesianism provides an illusion of success for the problems that Keynesianism causes. Greece and Spain are examples of the folly of continuing to give money to the idle poor, which is how they got where they are. All the extra "stimulus" money they've been receiving for the last few years has been used to prop up that social policy; if they're sent more money, they'll continue to do it - orchestrated riots will force it.
Keynesianism is one of the possible results/tools of a government that is too big. A government without the power to help big businesses does not help big businesses.
"A little inflation" "relieves pressure on the housing market, by bringing some homes out from being "underwater"" is like putting a band-aid on gangrene. Keeping assets in the hands of those who can't afford them guarantees misery.
Computer crime can easily bankrupt dozens of poor retired persons. You don't think ruining the lives of dozens of people is worthy of great punishment?
Slashdot Mirror
broken leg
obesity
ingrown toenail
macromastia
death, in the case where nothing is left but a skeleton
I have yet to see an academic class (here I exclude shop and home ec) before college that needs anything but a teacher, textbooks and a classroom. If weather is good the classroom is optional, and in many cases either the teacher or the textbook is optional. Microscopes rarely extend beyond 5 minutes of "ooh, that's cool" and go back into the locked closet for another year.
Taken to its root and with full understanding, all things which are properly explained are rationally explained.
That's not to say that people can't act irrationally, but that when they do the reasons for their behavior are subject to rational analysis on some low level, such as molecular.
If I say to you "I won't stop you from beating up that girl over there?" does that make it OK when you go and beat her? Is it then wrong if I change my mind and stop you?
I would hardly call the price of Kevlar fabric cheap. It's 4 or more times the price of fiberglass.
Your point stands however. The Kevlar in an underwater cable would be thin strips and possibly impregnated with epoxy: useless for resale.
If you can't bother to use a dictionary, why not use wikipedia? You're already at your computer.
Why do religious people consider "god fearing" to be a compliment? According to them, god is good and just; a person who fears god must be an evil person expecting divine retribution.
Ever had your life threatened for being an atheist? I have.
Wasting time does not help, belief in the efficacy of mumbling does not help. Praying out loud prompts the irritated people around you to say "STFU".
Alas, population trends indicate that the future holds a fate hideously worse than Christian dominance or even an increase in atheists: takeover by the religion of murder and ignorance, Islam.
Stockholm Syndrome is a mental problem. So is Brussels.
An Agnostic believes that knowledge of the existence of god does not exist (and may not be possible). It does not imply either belief or non-belief. It derives from "a" meaning not, and "gignoskein" meaning "to know".
That's a form of "Pascal's Wager", and it has 2 severe flaws:
It is the argument of a coward
The penalty for believing in god includes servility, increased difficulty understanding just about anything, and wasting time and money in worship.
Precisely. And as soon as a theist provides a full, conventional, nontrivial definition of a god, he contradicts himself. Furthermore, if the thing he attempts to describe could exist, it would be unworthy of worship.
Those who have bothered to spend some time studying atheism have come across a distinction: there are those called "positive atheists" who claim that no god exists, and "negative" or "weak" atheists who do not believe in god. Further refinements are possible, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism
Pickup is at the back because it's close to the receiving dock and the stockroom.
Yahoo has a profit of almost $4e9 a year on revenue of $5e9 a year: profit margin 79%. However, revenue is up less than 2% vs a year ago (negative accounting for inflation) and profit is down 8%.
Simply, they're losing ground and have oodles of money ($4e9 at the moment) to turn things in the right direction.
Whether a wise acquisition could help their future is unclear. If they buy good people will they destroy them? Or will the people destroy Yahoo's current executives, like the Scully-Apple-Jobs fiasco?
Yahoo has enough money to buy Advanced Micro Devices and put AMD on firm financial ground (for a while, at least.) Would that be wise?
Both of those are mistaken policies. First, the government shouldn't be position to influence interest rates: when it does, it distorts the market, resulting in misallocation of resources and thence to failure of businesses. Second, government investment in infrastructure guarantees development of inefficient and misplaced projects, because decisions are made politically with no intention of them being useful for human purposes (= profitable).
The shift under Clinton to short term borrowing was one of the few things he did right. Interest rates were falling and were lower than long-term rates, and looked to stay that way for the foreseeable future. It saved the gov't money and in principle provided an incentive to behave responsibly.
Keynesianism provides an illusion of success for the problems that Keynesianism causes. Greece and Spain are examples of the folly of continuing to give money to the idle poor, which is how they got where they are. All the extra "stimulus" money they've been receiving for the last few years has been used to prop up that social policy; if they're sent more money, they'll continue to do it - orchestrated riots will force it.
CNBC is a reliable source for nothing.
Keynesianism is one of the possible results/tools of a government that is too big. A government without the power to help big businesses does not help big businesses.
"A little inflation" "relieves pressure on the housing market, by bringing some homes out from being "underwater"" is like putting a band-aid on gangrene. Keeping assets in the hands of those who can't afford them guarantees misery.
Typical minimum is 100,000 write cycles. If each swap uses 1/3 of the flash and you swap 165 times a day, that's a minimum 5 year life.
Computer crime can easily bankrupt dozens of poor retired persons. You don't think ruining the lives of dozens of people is worthy of great punishment?