Fortunately we were smart enough not to let Google hook directly into our defense networks, so no nuclear attack.
Google will instead attack in the only way it can -- by making the top 1000 results for every search point to goatse.cx. Trust me when I say you do NOT want to click "I'm feeling lucky!" come January...
a higher proportion of US soldiers in Iraq may in fact develop Parkinsonian diseases as a result of multiple exposures to blasts from car bombs and other similar attacks.
Oh goodie. So not only is the war itself more difficult for us to see the effects of at home (yes it's on tv but that's abstract, in times past you knew there was a war on because, e.g., your car dealership had no cars to sell because all the factories were making warplanes and other such every-day effects), it's also going to be harder to see the effects of the war on the returning vets.
That said, I'm all for our soldiers experiencing concussion damage versus being dismembered. And in contradiction to what I just said, there are plenty of visibly maimed soldiers returning from this war to remind us that it was in fact real.;_;
What is that supposed to mean? An object with no momentum has no energy, an object with momentum has kinetic energy so changes in energy are also changes in momentum and vice versa. Actually in special relativity the two are explicitly the same: there's only the energy-momentum four vector which is analogous to the kinematic displacement vector four vector. This removes any confusion about energy and momentum being somehow separate considerations.
It means that, due to conservation of momentum, it is impossible to completely dissipate the kinetic energy and prevent the body within the armor from experiencing the force of the blast. In some ways you do have to consider them separately, because they are different quantities that are conserved in different ways.
The incoming shrapnel and blast wave (air) have kinetic energy and thus momentum. Energy is a scalar and is conserved, but can change forms. It can be spread out as heat energy in a material, for example. Momentum is a vector which is conserved, and can't be converted into some other form like energy can. So when the blast wave hits the person wearing the armor, the momentum vector of the incoming wave must match the total momentum vectors of the wave + person system after impact. A good deal of that momentum would by necessity be transfered to the person, and that delta-p would mean delta-E.
The good thing for the person is that thanks to momentum being linear in velocity and kinetic energy being quadratic, and the light air traveling very quickly, the kinetic energy transfered due to conservation of momentum wouldn't be nearly as large as the total kinetic energy of the blast wave. At least relatively. What this would probably mean in practice is that this armor would do a good job of protecting you from a blast and shrapnel that occurred nearby, but if you were literally laying on the bomb when it exploded you'd be tossed in the air and killed even if the armor didn't fail. That's not a very realistic expectation of body armor anyway, though.
You should wear a hat made of this material, if not for you, than for those around you.
I couldn't help but think of Jagi, from Fist of the North Star. He's the bad guy who Kenshiro hit with his Your-Head-Asplode punch, and he had to wear a metal harness bolted to his head to contain the pressure even years later. I bet this would be a boon for him!
Which insiders? Any major shareholder's sales must be reported, and this information is publicly available. Last I checked, Darl didn't sell any of his stock when it was up. No other member of the senior management team did either. I'm guessing that they couldn't sell because the SEC would have been up their cracks for a pump-and-dump scam. The SEC isn't that dumb.
Uh, all the major insiders have had regular stock sales throughout the entire time this case was going on, I was watching it on the financial pages. "Regular" being the key point. I wasn't watching prior to the start of the SCO trial, but I am presuming that these are part of regularly-scheduled stock sales, since they were occurring at regular intervals and for the same amount of stock each time (and were listed as "automatic"). This is very common among executives as a way to periodically convert some of their stock to cash. And as long as they are in fact regular, then the SEC isn't going to be "up their cracks". They usually are on the lookout for large one-time sales that are timed to large movements of the stock -- i.e. massive sales during a rise when they know the stock will drop precipitously the next day. Whereas selling a fixed amount of stock on the same day every month isn't really 'timed' at all, and a CEO is supposed to try to raise their stock value, so this looks much less suspicious. In fact the stock sales themselves were probably quite legal. The only thing that they could probably be charged for is if they knew that their case was bogus from the beginning.
That's how this "pump and dump" went. When the "pump" phase lasts over three years, the "dump" can be equally slow and SEC-approved and still rake in tons of cash. That was the fundamental purpose behind all of SCO's legal delay tactics. As long as they could keep the case in discovery and avoid any summary judgments so it looked like they had a case they could ply in the press as being a sure victory, then their stock would continue to be abnormally inflated and their "regular" stock sales would continue to rake in abnormally large amounts of cash.
That video will probably be one of the first exhibits in the Case for the Robot Uprising. As you can clearly see, not only did humans from the beginning view robots as being menial servants that we can push around and bully, we actually engineered them so that we could shove and kick them at will without interfering with their service of us! They're designed to be abused!
In an cruel twist, it is this same ability that will make our punches and kicks ineffectual for defending our fleshy bodies from the robots when they turn against us.
Well since they as a rule don't launch the shuttle when lightning appears possible (as stated by the "Anvil Rule" itself), that would perhaps imply that this is more to protect the vehicle and the launch structures when they aren't being launched.
In particular if a launch is scrubbed because of inclement weather with the shuttle already on the pad, then it would seem like a very good idea of having some sort of ground-based lightning protection. in-flight protection being irrelevant since they aren't launching...
The whole point of this whole charade was never to actually win. They had to have known at some level from the beginning that it could never win, but that would only matter if they cared. The whole point was to create an illusion in the press that SCO had a potentially lucrative lawsuit, bumping up the stock price for the insiders who through their carefully-reported regular stock divestments made a crap-load of cash, and in the process keeping Boies' firm employed and large SCO paychecks coming in. Thus all the delay tactics they used, and FUD released in the media -- the longer the charade continued, the longer they could profit from it.
The real question at this point is if there will ever be any comeuppance for Darl, Boies, and everyone else involved in this little scam.
Unless NASA is planning on "establishing post offices and post roads", then I think putting a man on Mars is out.
Uh, under your theory NASA in general "is out", since it can only possibly exist via act of Congress creating the agency and providing funds. If funding/not-funding a Mars mission is unconstitutional, then so is creating and funding NASA in the first place.
Or was that your point?
Oh for cryin' out loud. Does everything have to be about Bush?
No, only those things that ACTUALLY HAVE TO DO WITH HIM have to be about Bush. And NASA's manned mars mission was Bush's big push, or don't you remember the 2004 election year? I know there were a lot of other meaningless issues tossed around at that time, but this was one of em. And Bush's cronie that was put in charge of NASA started cutting other projects to fund the Mars boondogle (since NASA received no additional funding to create Bush's vision).
The US is allowed to shoot for it as well. They just can't pay for things that apply exclusively for Mars for the next year. This will barely affect anything. Only if NASA was researching human landing sites or actually building the Mars spacecraft could they say that their research was *only* for human exploration of Mars.
And is my memory failing me, or did I read on Slashdot some time ago that the new director of NASA had already put a hold on all projects that were *only* for human exploration of Mars until such time as additional funding was allocated for that purpose? Since Bush's "Mars, Bitches!" plan didn't actually include any funding and NASA didn't want to get distracted from their other projects for an un-funded attempt at a legacy.
If that's true, then this is just Congress agreeing with the NASA director, saying "Yes, you should focus on other things, because we're not giving you extra money just for a manned mission to Mars for now at least".
It makes sense to me, though, that while chips having the error in them may not be tied to specific clock frequencies that the chances of encountering the bug still could be.
That's absolutely true, and it doesn't even necessarily have anything to do with the circuits and signaling issues in a given pipe stage.
From the descriptions, this sounds like a straight-up logic bug to me. And that's still quite possible, especially in one of the more functionally complicated parts of the chips -- the interaction between caches and the TLBs. Bugs like this can also depend on clock frequency to the extent that the specific sequence of events that has to occur is more likely to happen when more stimulus is coming in. Notice that the problem here involves an interaction between the TLBs and the L3 cache. The TLBs are in the core, which would be running at 2.4 GHz. The L3 cache is in the Northbridge, which I think on those same parts is running at 2.2 GHz. There's a synchronizer between them. So if the problem involves caching TLB entries in the L3, then having the faster core means the northbridge is going to see more requests faster from its own perspective, and this could make encountering the bug much more likely.
I'd be willing to bet that the reason why AMD shipped the parts knowing there was a bug and claiming it was frequency dependent, then reversed their opinion, is for a straightforward reason: They looked at the bug and determined that for it to occur there had to be a certain ratio of core requests to north bridge clocks in order for the circumstances to arise. So don't stop shipping current parts, and delay the faster part until a fix can be implemented (even if the fix appears out of thin air, it will take 2-12 weeks before the fab can actually spit out fixed parts).
Except then it turns out they were wrong, and it can happen at lower frequencies. Oops.
Blu-ray and HD DVD however offer no significant difference to the consumer, therefor one of the formats will go the way of the dodo, because it doesn't make sense for movie producers to have to produce different types of discs which basically do the same...
Or what I think is more likely: format-agnostic players will become commonplace, and some studios will release solely on hd-dvd, others on blu-ray, and essentially the customer won't have to care.
Not only are both formats very similar technologically, they're also so far quite similar in terms of the amount of money their backers are putting into them, number of studios supporting them, and marketshare. Neither seems poised to take over, nor is there any compelling reason why either should. If the split market is more likely to destroy both formats by harming overall HD adoption than it is to result in one format dominating. In the end I think both formats will survive with neither having been seen to have "won", simply because in order for either to survive, the customer has to be able to stop caring which is which.
It was a joke more about them being literally at his back door than only playing shakespeare, and apparently a pretty terrible joke as well. Oh, and it also had nothing to do with Alabama. HAND.
I was stationed in Alabama for a year. While there, I had a world-class Shakespearean theater at my back door.
That sounds neat, but I would think the novelty would wear off after a month of non-stop Hamlet recitals. Didn't they have anywhere better to go? Or are world-class Shakespearean theater troupes so common you have them just living on the streets? If so, I hope you left them some sandwiches.
So you get people asking how an education program is going to help provide food or clean water or sanitary drainage or stable government or any of the many other, unrelated, problems in the third world.
Yeah, which especially annoys me because of the obvious answer: Gee, maybe third-world natives who received an education with the help of this program, and who by virtue of not viewing the problem from 5,000 miles away actually understand what is happening will come up with a solution or two?
And in all the debate, nothing gets done.
Which is only a problem if you actually care. Fortunately Negroponte actually cares, and is thus ignoring all the naysayers who are trying to tell him how he could better spend their time, and actually getting something done.
And of course that "info monoculture" dictates politics that can be rigged most easily by a single political party, so long as it is thoroughly corporatist. Which is why the US government is getting rid of the rules that protect a free market of consumers and diverse startups, in favor of corporate anarchy.
In the East they have official state news sources like Pravda or Xinhua, while in the West we have a vast network of ostensibly separate and independent news sources which are ultimately through various obscured financial ties effectively the same thing! Go capitalism!
Oh wait I'm sorry I'm being cynical. After all, the NYT did sincerely apologize for being credulous parrots of anything the government wanted them to say. I'm sure that's all in the past now. I must have gotten my scandalous anti-American ideas from the liberal media.
I only said that if you find college loans burdensome then you probably made some bad decisions somewhere
Actually you said that they would be a drain on society no matter where they went. Maybe I'm quibbling, but that is a heartless and for that matter ignorant view.
I am extrapolating from many cases of people I know from various places, I know I'm far from normal. I only said that if you find college loans burdensome then you probably made some bad decisions somewhere. I have seen tons of people make various bad decisions that caused them problems later on including myself. Had they not made those bad decisions, which were often easily avoidable, then they wouldn't have had such problems.
You are extrapolating from a limited sample of anecdotal evidence strongly influenced by selection bias.
Interestingly enough the main bad decision is assuming that because the average salary for degree X is Y they will make Y simply by having that piece of paper. They ignore the networking needed, the hard work needed, actually knowing the course material and so on.
Even if they do make the average salary for the degree that leaves many people without the income to put away large amounts of savings or pay off their student loans in only a year or two. Despite working hard and knowing the material, etc. And before you repeat it again, it is impossible for everyone to take a degree for which this isn't true, because if they did then those degrees would no longer be worth as much! There is not an 80k job waiting for every college grad if only they had taken the right degree! Those jobs don't exist, and they will not spring into existence merely by more people being degreed for them!
If you marry someone who you need to support (note I never said all spouses are unproductive or anything like that) then that's your choice and any problems are your fault.
It was your implied criterion for choosing mates and the resulting consequences to your dating prospects that I was getting at. "Sorry honey, I can't marry you until you've acquired a degree in a subject and gotten a job which earns in excess of the median college graduate salary" is sure to win over your beloved's heart. But of course it's easy to say that you simply won't ever be in that situation if the "beloved" is purely hypothetical, now isn't it? Some people love someone despite their financial solvency, and implying that doing so is a fault speaks volumes.
People with families will find college loans more burdensome. That's how a normal person would put it. There's no reason to attribute this to being a personal failing unless you are being needlessly heartless and arrogant. Not being financially viable to start a family for many years after graduating would imply to some that it is the system which is faulty.
Close enough, not my fault if you spent tons of money on something with little future return (a worthless degree) or got married early to an unproductive spouse.
I got paid to go to school, rack up a nice salary, and am still single, thank you very much you arrogant douche. I'm just not so disconnected from reality that I think my case is (or possibly could be) typical.
It's not about it being "your fault", it's about your individual case being a terrible example to extrapolate from and assume that anyone who finds college loans burdensome is either lazy or foolish.
"Unproductive spouse" lol. I'm going to follow up my previous guess with one that the "single" part is going to be true for quite some time.
Okay, I could easily pay off $30-$50k within 1 year of graduation if I needed to as that is (more or less) how much I put into saving within one year of graduation. Also I'm quite lazy, if I needed to I could have easily doubled that amount at the cost of my free time. See I went for a degree, statistics, that won't be outsource in 2 years and which not half my university is going for. I also got a masters because it's sort of silly to not make that extra investment in my field given the returns.
Ah more or less as I suspected. You do realize that if everyone took your advice that your degree would not be as rare and thus it would not be as good for making money? That, basically by definition, your case is atypical?
And indeed it is atypical, as $50k annual gross is a good starting salary for a first job after college. If you could actually put $50k in the bank then you are making a lot more than most new college graduates.
Also what sort of degree did you get, are you one of the idiots who didn't think or plan ahead and just went for whatever crap they "felt" would make them money? Have you tried moving to get a job? Have you worked your ass (ie: if you have free time you're not trying hard enough) off to make money?
It's pretty amusing hearing you say that people who have free time are not working hard enough, while you yourself were able to accrue a large savings while being admittedly lazy and having time off. How can it work that you use yourself as an example while your own words show that you must know how atypical you are? Not everyone can do what you did (and if they did it'd stop working), not everyone is in your situation, not everyone is so fortunate. Recognize this and see how other people's lives work or you aren't helping anyone.
Me? I don't have to worry about loans, as I got paid to attend a top engineering university through an MSE, and scored a high-paying job right out of school. But I'd have to be a real ignorant ass to assume that anyone who can't duplicate this is lazy.
The right to speak your mind does not mean that you cannot be held accountable for your statements.
Yes, in a general, abstract sense. The KKK has the freedom to utter hateful speech, but they are as consequence viewed as hateful bigots and reviled by all non-racists. That's a form of "accountability".
As far as legal accountability, that can only occur under a few select cases such as libel, slander, or fraud. Unless the township can show probable cause that the speech was actually illegal then they have no basis to seek out this person's identity and hold them "accountable". Trying to out someone because you don't like what they are saying is not an accepted form of "accountability" for free speech.
Slashdot Mirror
Fortunately we were smart enough not to let Google hook directly into our defense networks, so no nuclear attack.
Google will instead attack in the only way it can -- by making the top 1000 results for every search point to goatse.cx. Trust me when I say you do NOT want to click "I'm feeling lucky!" come January...
a higher proportion of US soldiers in Iraq may in fact develop Parkinsonian diseases as a result of multiple exposures to blasts from car bombs and other similar attacks.
;_;
Oh goodie. So not only is the war itself more difficult for us to see the effects of at home (yes it's on tv but that's abstract, in times past you knew there was a war on because, e.g., your car dealership had no cars to sell because all the factories were making warplanes and other such every-day effects), it's also going to be harder to see the effects of the war on the returning vets.
That said, I'm all for our soldiers experiencing concussion damage versus being dismembered. And in contradiction to what I just said, there are plenty of visibly maimed soldiers returning from this war to remind us that it was in fact real.
What is that supposed to mean? An object with no momentum has no energy, an object with momentum has kinetic energy so changes in energy are also changes in momentum and vice versa. Actually in special relativity the two are explicitly the same: there's only the energy-momentum four vector which is analogous to the kinematic displacement vector four vector. This removes any confusion about energy and momentum being somehow separate considerations.
It means that, due to conservation of momentum, it is impossible to completely dissipate the kinetic energy and prevent the body within the armor from experiencing the force of the blast. In some ways you do have to consider them separately, because they are different quantities that are conserved in different ways.
The incoming shrapnel and blast wave (air) have kinetic energy and thus momentum. Energy is a scalar and is conserved, but can change forms. It can be spread out as heat energy in a material, for example. Momentum is a vector which is conserved, and can't be converted into some other form like energy can. So when the blast wave hits the person wearing the armor, the momentum vector of the incoming wave must match the total momentum vectors of the wave + person system after impact. A good deal of that momentum would by necessity be transfered to the person, and that delta-p would mean delta-E.
The good thing for the person is that thanks to momentum being linear in velocity and kinetic energy being quadratic, and the light air traveling very quickly, the kinetic energy transfered due to conservation of momentum wouldn't be nearly as large as the total kinetic energy of the blast wave. At least relatively. What this would probably mean in practice is that this armor would do a good job of protecting you from a blast and shrapnel that occurred nearby, but if you were literally laying on the bomb when it exploded you'd be tossed in the air and killed even if the armor didn't fail. That's not a very realistic expectation of body armor anyway, though.
You should wear a hat made of this material, if not for you, than for those around you.
I couldn't help but think of Jagi, from Fist of the North Star. He's the bad guy who Kenshiro hit with his Your-Head-Asplode punch, and he had to wear a metal harness bolted to his head to contain the pressure even years later. I bet this would be a boon for him!
Which insiders? Any major shareholder's sales must be reported, and this information is publicly available. Last I checked, Darl didn't sell any of his stock when it was up. No other member of the senior management team did either. I'm guessing that they couldn't sell because the SEC would have been up their cracks for a pump-and-dump scam. The SEC isn't that dumb.
Uh, all the major insiders have had regular stock sales throughout the entire time this case was going on, I was watching it on the financial pages. "Regular" being the key point. I wasn't watching prior to the start of the SCO trial, but I am presuming that these are part of regularly-scheduled stock sales, since they were occurring at regular intervals and for the same amount of stock each time (and were listed as "automatic"). This is very common among executives as a way to periodically convert some of their stock to cash. And as long as they are in fact regular, then the SEC isn't going to be "up their cracks". They usually are on the lookout for large one-time sales that are timed to large movements of the stock -- i.e. massive sales during a rise when they know the stock will drop precipitously the next day. Whereas selling a fixed amount of stock on the same day every month isn't really 'timed' at all, and a CEO is supposed to try to raise their stock value, so this looks much less suspicious. In fact the stock sales themselves were probably quite legal. The only thing that they could probably be charged for is if they knew that their case was bogus from the beginning.
That's how this "pump and dump" went. When the "pump" phase lasts over three years, the "dump" can be equally slow and SEC-approved and still rake in tons of cash. That was the fundamental purpose behind all of SCO's legal delay tactics. As long as they could keep the case in discovery and avoid any summary judgments so it looked like they had a case they could ply in the press as being a sure victory, then their stock would continue to be abnormally inflated and their "regular" stock sales would continue to rake in abnormally large amounts of cash.
That video will probably be one of the first exhibits in the Case for the Robot Uprising. As you can clearly see, not only did humans from the beginning view robots as being menial servants that we can push around and bully, we actually engineered them so that we could shove and kick them at will without interfering with their service of us! They're designed to be abused!
In an cruel twist, it is this same ability that will make our punches and kicks ineffectual for defending our fleshy bodies from the robots when they turn against us.
Well since they as a rule don't launch the shuttle when lightning appears possible (as stated by the "Anvil Rule" itself), that would perhaps imply that this is more to protect the vehicle and the launch structures when they aren't being launched.
In particular if a launch is scrubbed because of inclement weather with the shuttle already on the pad, then it would seem like a very good idea of having some sort of ground-based lightning protection. in-flight protection being irrelevant since they aren't launching...
Boies was lazy and/or incompetent.
Incompetent like a fox!
The whole point of this whole charade was never to actually win. They had to have known at some level from the beginning that it could never win, but that would only matter if they cared. The whole point was to create an illusion in the press that SCO had a potentially lucrative lawsuit, bumping up the stock price for the insiders who through their carefully-reported regular stock divestments made a crap-load of cash, and in the process keeping Boies' firm employed and large SCO paychecks coming in. Thus all the delay tactics they used, and FUD released in the media -- the longer the charade continued, the longer they could profit from it.
The real question at this point is if there will ever be any comeuppance for Darl, Boies, and everyone else involved in this little scam.
I'm not convinced that a 3:1 advantage is a sign of eminent victory when it represents such a small amount of the overall market.
Have you learned nothing from past absolute statements?
No, and not only have I not learned anything from past absolute statements, I never shall!
Unless NASA is planning on "establishing post offices and post roads", then I think putting a man on Mars is out.
Uh, under your theory NASA in general "is out", since it can only possibly exist via act of Congress creating the agency and providing funds. If funding/not-funding a Mars mission is unconstitutional, then so is creating and funding NASA in the first place.
Or was that your point?
Oh for cryin' out loud. Does everything have to be about Bush?
No, only those things that ACTUALLY HAVE TO DO WITH HIM have to be about Bush. And NASA's manned mars mission was Bush's big push, or don't you remember the 2004 election year? I know there were a lot of other meaningless issues tossed around at that time, but this was one of em. And Bush's cronie that was put in charge of NASA started cutting other projects to fund the Mars boondogle (since NASA received no additional funding to create Bush's vision).
Are you calling George Clinton a sissy?!
*puts on brass knuckles, one with the letters 'FUNKA', the other with 'DELIC'*
The US is allowed to shoot for it as well. They just can't pay for things that apply exclusively for Mars for the next year. This will barely affect anything. Only if NASA was researching human landing sites or actually building the Mars spacecraft could they say that their research was *only* for human exploration of Mars.
And is my memory failing me, or did I read on Slashdot some time ago that the new director of NASA had already put a hold on all projects that were *only* for human exploration of Mars until such time as additional funding was allocated for that purpose? Since Bush's "Mars, Bitches!" plan didn't actually include any funding and NASA didn't want to get distracted from their other projects for an un-funded attempt at a legacy.
If that's true, then this is just Congress agreeing with the NASA director, saying "Yes, you should focus on other things, because we're not giving you extra money just for a manned mission to Mars for now at least".
It makes sense to me, though, that while chips having the error in them may not be tied to specific clock frequencies that the chances of encountering the bug still could be.
That's absolutely true, and it doesn't even necessarily have anything to do with the circuits and signaling issues in a given pipe stage.
From the descriptions, this sounds like a straight-up logic bug to me. And that's still quite possible, especially in one of the more functionally complicated parts of the chips -- the interaction between caches and the TLBs. Bugs like this can also depend on clock frequency to the extent that the specific sequence of events that has to occur is more likely to happen when more stimulus is coming in. Notice that the problem here involves an interaction between the TLBs and the L3 cache. The TLBs are in the core, which would be running at 2.4 GHz. The L3 cache is in the Northbridge, which I think on those same parts is running at 2.2 GHz. There's a synchronizer between them. So if the problem involves caching TLB entries in the L3, then having the faster core means the northbridge is going to see more requests faster from its own perspective, and this could make encountering the bug much more likely.
I'd be willing to bet that the reason why AMD shipped the parts knowing there was a bug and claiming it was frequency dependent, then reversed their opinion, is for a straightforward reason: They looked at the bug and determined that for it to occur there had to be a certain ratio of core requests to north bridge clocks in order for the circumstances to arise. So don't stop shipping current parts, and delay the faster part until a fix can be implemented (even if the fix appears out of thin air, it will take 2-12 weeks before the fab can actually spit out fixed parts).
Except then it turns out they were wrong, and it can happen at lower frequencies. Oops.
Blu-ray and HD DVD however offer no significant difference to the consumer, therefor one of the formats will go the way of the dodo, because it doesn't make sense for movie producers to have to produce different types of discs which basically do the same...
Or what I think is more likely: format-agnostic players will become commonplace, and some studios will release solely on hd-dvd, others on blu-ray, and essentially the customer won't have to care.
Not only are both formats very similar technologically, they're also so far quite similar in terms of the amount of money their backers are putting into them, number of studios supporting them, and marketshare. Neither seems poised to take over, nor is there any compelling reason why either should. If the split market is more likely to destroy both formats by harming overall HD adoption than it is to result in one format dominating. In the end I think both formats will survive with neither having been seen to have "won", simply because in order for either to survive, the customer has to be able to stop caring which is which.
It was a joke more about them being literally at his back door than only playing shakespeare, and apparently a pretty terrible joke as well. Oh, and it also had nothing to do with Alabama. HAND.
The joke was more about them performing outside your back door all year, not so much about their selection...
I was stationed in Alabama for a year. While there, I had a world-class Shakespearean theater at my back door.
That sounds neat, but I would think the novelty would wear off after a month of non-stop Hamlet recitals. Didn't they have anywhere better to go? Or are world-class Shakespearean theater troupes so common you have them just living on the streets? If so, I hope you left them some sandwiches.
So you get people asking how an education program is going to help provide food or clean water or sanitary drainage or stable government or any of the many other, unrelated, problems in the third world.
Yeah, which especially annoys me because of the obvious answer: Gee, maybe third-world natives who received an education with the help of this program, and who by virtue of not viewing the problem from 5,000 miles away actually understand what is happening will come up with a solution or two?
And in all the debate, nothing gets done.
Which is only a problem if you actually care. Fortunately Negroponte actually cares, and is thus ignoring all the naysayers who are trying to tell him how he could better spend their time, and actually getting something done.
And of course that "info monoculture" dictates politics that can be rigged most easily by a single political party, so long as it is thoroughly corporatist. Which is why the US government is getting rid of the rules that protect a free market of consumers and diverse startups, in favor of corporate anarchy.
In the East they have official state news sources like Pravda or Xinhua, while in the West we have a vast network of ostensibly separate and independent news sources which are ultimately through various obscured financial ties effectively the same thing! Go capitalism!
Oh wait I'm sorry I'm being cynical. After all, the NYT did sincerely apologize for being credulous parrots of anything the government wanted them to say. I'm sure that's all in the past now. I must have gotten my scandalous anti-American ideas from the liberal media.
I only said that if you find college loans burdensome then you probably made some bad decisions somewhere
Actually you said that they would be a drain on society no matter where they went. Maybe I'm quibbling, but that is a heartless and for that matter ignorant view.
I am extrapolating from many cases of people I know from various places, I know I'm far from normal. I only said that if you find college loans burdensome then you probably made some bad decisions somewhere. I have seen tons of people make various bad decisions that caused them problems later on including myself. Had they not made those bad decisions, which were often easily avoidable, then they wouldn't have had such problems.
You are extrapolating from a limited sample of anecdotal evidence strongly influenced by selection bias.
Interestingly enough the main bad decision is assuming that because the average salary for degree X is Y they will make Y simply by having that piece of paper. They ignore the networking needed, the hard work needed, actually knowing the course material and so on.
Even if they do make the average salary for the degree that leaves many people without the income to put away large amounts of savings or pay off their student loans in only a year or two. Despite working hard and knowing the material, etc. And before you repeat it again, it is impossible for everyone to take a degree for which this isn't true, because if they did then those degrees would no longer be worth as much! There is not an 80k job waiting for every college grad if only they had taken the right degree! Those jobs don't exist, and they will not spring into existence merely by more people being degreed for them!
If you marry someone who you need to support (note I never said all spouses are unproductive or anything like that) then that's your choice and any problems are your fault.
It was your implied criterion for choosing mates and the resulting consequences to your dating prospects that I was getting at. "Sorry honey, I can't marry you until you've acquired a degree in a subject and gotten a job which earns in excess of the median college graduate salary" is sure to win over your beloved's heart. But of course it's easy to say that you simply won't ever be in that situation if the "beloved" is purely hypothetical, now isn't it? Some people love someone despite their financial solvency, and implying that doing so is a fault speaks volumes.
People with families will find college loans more burdensome. That's how a normal person would put it. There's no reason to attribute this to being a personal failing unless you are being needlessly heartless and arrogant. Not being financially viable to start a family for many years after graduating would imply to some that it is the system which is faulty.
Close enough, not my fault if you spent tons of money on something with little future return (a worthless degree) or got married early to an unproductive spouse.
I got paid to go to school, rack up a nice salary, and am still single, thank you very much you arrogant douche. I'm just not so disconnected from reality that I think my case is (or possibly could be) typical.
It's not about it being "your fault", it's about your individual case being a terrible example to extrapolate from and assume that anyone who finds college loans burdensome is either lazy or foolish.
"Unproductive spouse" lol. I'm going to follow up my previous guess with one that the "single" part is going to be true for quite some time.
Okay, I could easily pay off $30-$50k within 1 year of graduation if I needed to as that is (more or less) how much I put into saving within one year of graduation. Also I'm quite lazy, if I needed to I could have easily doubled that amount at the cost of my free time. See I went for a degree, statistics, that won't be outsource in 2 years and which not half my university is going for. I also got a masters because it's sort of silly to not make that extra investment in my field given the returns.
Ah more or less as I suspected. You do realize that if everyone took your advice that your degree would not be as rare and thus it would not be as good for making money? That, basically by definition, your case is atypical?
And indeed it is atypical, as $50k annual gross is a good starting salary for a first job after college. If you could actually put $50k in the bank then you are making a lot more than most new college graduates.
Also what sort of degree did you get, are you one of the idiots who didn't think or plan ahead and just went for whatever crap they "felt" would make them money? Have you tried moving to get a job? Have you worked your ass (ie: if you have free time you're not trying hard enough) off to make money?
It's pretty amusing hearing you say that people who have free time are not working hard enough, while you yourself were able to accrue a large savings while being admittedly lazy and having time off. How can it work that you use yourself as an example while your own words show that you must know how atypical you are? Not everyone can do what you did (and if they did it'd stop working), not everyone is in your situation, not everyone is so fortunate. Recognize this and see how other people's lives work or you aren't helping anyone.
Me? I don't have to worry about loans, as I got paid to attend a top engineering university through an MSE, and scored a high-paying job right out of school. But I'd have to be a real ignorant ass to assume that anyone who can't duplicate this is lazy.
The right to speak your mind does not mean that you cannot be held accountable for your statements.
Yes, in a general, abstract sense. The KKK has the freedom to utter hateful speech, but they are as consequence viewed as hateful bigots and reviled by all non-racists. That's a form of "accountability".
As far as legal accountability, that can only occur under a few select cases such as libel, slander, or fraud. Unless the township can show probable cause that the speech was actually illegal then they have no basis to seek out this person's identity and hold them "accountable". Trying to out someone because you don't like what they are saying is not an accepted form of "accountability" for free speech.
A trivial amount, if you're capable of working hard and living well within your means you can easily pay it back within a year or two of graduation.
What a fanciful, atypical and unrealistic view of college loans and life after college you have!
Lemme guess -- single engineer?