Is is FAR more important to get a single non-approval vote method up and in place than to pick the single best one.
In effect, your insistence on selecting the 'best' system, rather than making any choice available at all is in fact a kind of Approval voting. You are voting for the single candidate you consider to be the best, as opposed to voting for multiple candidates.
Been dismissed multiple times before by real scientists. The problems with the study was: a. They determined success and defined control in the year 2000, not 1970.
Note the dates, kids from the 1970s, at kids age 3-11 measured success when the kids were 32. I.E. Math says the study ended in 2000.
No, your fate is NOT predestined by the time you are 11.
A company called Ifixit.com sells an Iphone liberation kit that includes:
1. Replacement philips screws
2. A philips screwdriver for said screws
3. A second, non-approved, screwdriver that they claim will easily remove the penta-stupid screws. As it is not an official penta screwdriver, this makeshift screwdriver is likely to damage the penta screws (but NOT the iphone).
I have no connection with ifixit, and have not even purchased their stuff. I can not attest to their quality.
1. Blacksmiths still exist. As do metal workshops. I live in Manhattan and have made simple tools. It is not that hard to create your own screwdriver - even of odd shapes.
2. Yes, special screwdrivers will stop the casual tinker, but not a business man, or any other determined person. This is why most normal businesses do not use weird screws as security. The idea just pisses off your customers WITHOUT in anyway affecting competitors.
3. Apple has always been a control freak of a company. Luckily, their are other products out there that are cheaper, just as well built, that encourage more tinkering (aka android).
Actually there has always been two answers. But Clarence being male, only knew about purchasing it. Clarence's wife knew the other one - get some guy to buy it for you.
So basically it was the last option - the thieves engaged in unauthorized trades then stole the resulting CASH.
But some idiot decided that it would be a bigger news story if they lied and claimed they stole the carbon credits.
Cancel the illegal trades, then go through all the normal procedures that you deal with when someone convinces a financial organization to give out cash to people that were not authorized to receive it.
1. They stole the 'carbon credits', not electronic cash.
2. You can't legally sell them anywhere except via the exchange.
3. The exchange tracks all legal sales.
4. Therefore, can't the government require the exchange to show all legal sales and invalidate the unapproved sales?
Isn't that the entire value of using the exchange? To track the sales of said credits?
Assuming that they have already used the exchange to sell the the fraudlenty exchanged credits, is it not a relatively easy matter to find the account that sold the stolen carbon credits and force them to buy them back?
This assumes of course that it was actually carbon credits that were stolen instead of cash stolen from un-authorized trades (in which case, the article needs to be re-written, removing the sensational crap)
Never had to call the credit card company to dispute a bill? They ask for the credit card #.
I also guess you don't use a good reward program. I like my reward program (1% cash - same as all the rest - except they put the cash reward directly into a savings account one month after you pay the bill as opposed to year end.) Because if you have a reward program you like, you tend to use it for everything - even buying pizza on the phone.
Because mosquitoes don't have a limit on how many bacteria they can carry. They don't want to find out that the same GM mosquito that carries the cure to malaria also is an ideal host to carry say, AIDS or EBOLA, or the Bubonic Plague.
Of course, this is in reality not much more likely than a random mosquito developing the ability to carry those diseases. But it is an intelligent feature to add on to almost all GM creatures, at least until we develop significant experience in handling them.
And the Dodo. Not to mention the Florida giant beaver.
I can do without the giant sloth, short nosed bear, dire wolves or the saber tooth tigers.
Climate 'deniers' fall into 4 broad categories
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 0, Troll
1. Those that know the climate is getting warmer, but think it is not related to man's actions and that therefore man is incapable of fixing the problem. They won't bet you.
2. Those that know the climate is getting warmer, but are being paid to say otherwise. They won't bet you.
3. Those that are too stupid and too poor to have any money to bet. They can't bet you.
4. Those that are too stupid but by shere chance have cash. These people will most likely not have enough money to pay off the debt when it comes due (but just wait, they assure you, as soon as a certain nigerian transaction is complete, they will be able to pay you off). If they by random luck have money then, they won't remember the bet/will deny they ever made it. They won't pay you.
You misuinderstand. I am not forcing the idea on other people.
I am saying that this is what is reasonable and any attempt to do anything else is pretty much scumbags trying to engage in fraud. I am not a dictator forcing people to do something unreasonable, I am the government arresting people for fraud. If you disagree that what I propose is a true and accurate description, that is one thing.
So they would be prosecuted for said fraud if they did what you suggest.
But to stand there and accuse me of being a petty tyrant when I won't let a lying piece of crap change the definition of the word 'sell' to mean that they continue to have control over the piece of hardware that I bought, then you need to buy a dictionary.
I am not giving rediciluous demands. If someone claims to be selling you something, then fine, you OWN it and they can't order you about what other programs you can run on it.
I think we need a law establishing the clear difference between own vs. rent.
Own = single payment (or limited set of payments) ahead of time, no need to return property, free right to mod, upgrade, download anything to it. No cancellation fees allowed. They can charge to ship out (and charge shipping to return if broken and being replaced). No signature required
Rent = a set of equal payments (no set up/start up/initiation fee) each good for a specified amount of time, property must be returned WITH ZERO SHIPPING COST (it is their property, they have to pay to ship it both ways - build it into the rent), zero rights to mod/upgrade/download anything. Cancellation fees allowed, but not to exceed remaining months.
hand written signature expressely required for a rental agreement - and also for any extensions of the agreement. Services can be begun without the signature on a monthly usage, but no cancellation fee or contract is considered active without the signature. Electronic signatures not allowed unless an independent third party tracks said signature. (Sort of like
In addition, they need to clearly state what is being sold vs what is being rented. You would be allowed to sell a product and then rent a service to it, but which is what needs to be clearly shown.
It is unreasonable, stupid and petty for someone to require an employee to buy tools you wish them to use for your corporation. Among other problems what if you don't like their service terms? What if they get something that does not have service where they work.
Just cancel the plan. Let them keep the phone if they want to start their own plan. The phone is already paid for and it's not like they are going to get much re-selling the phone.
In addition, for everyone that keeps the phone, the state gets the benefit without paying for it.
Besides, a company issued phone is pretty standard for anyone that might have to come in on the weekend. Pretty much every IT job, every management job. every lawyer, every doctor need a phone. I bet the state of California has lot of management, law, and IT jobs that need the phone.
There is a difference between granting rights to an entire species when a single member asks for it and requiring all members of the species to ask for it.
By ignoring this rather important distinction, you are creating a false attack against a reasonable argument.
You need to take some classes about both arguing and statistics. You gave anacodatl arguments, which are worthless. We don't care if you personally can do something safely. We care about what the majority of people can do. And studies have repeatedly shown that driving while on the phone is DANGEROUS for most people. It is the equivelent of being drunk.
They have also shown that none of the idiots that were involved in the accidents caused by their dangerous actions thought they were doing anything dangerous. Many of them had clean driving records. Your record is not convincing to me.
For this reason, their activities are illegal. The excuse that you personally believe you are such a good drive that you can do it anyway is not considered a get out of jail free card even if it happens to be true (and studies have shown it in general NOT to be true).
OK, so in summary: 1) I am not attacking you in particular, 2) many other people are dangerous while using the phone while driving, and for all I know you are the best driver in the world and can in fact do this safely. 3) It doesn't matter because it is still illegal because other people are not as good as your god like driving. 4) You admit you engage in an illegal activity but claim it is not dangerous 'for you'. 5) The government doesn't care about youer particular claim to god-like driving ability. 6)we care about what is safe for most other people, not you in particular and base the laws on that, not your personal god like driving ability.
P.S. Other studies have shown that it is not a single person on the road that cause traffic jams, but a combination of two or more people with poor driving skills. For example two guys driving the exact same speed in the next lane prevents cars passing, slowing traffic in general. Or one idiot slamming on the brakes and the guy tailgating him.
You have missed the points. I understand why you would think "easy and cheap = bad" and "tough and expensive = good", but that is not why we think it. Among other things you are confusing correlation with cause.
Basically what it comes down to is that "easy and cheap = used all the time, with no actual reason, such as 'hey that guy is black'." while "tough and expensive = cops only use it when they have a valid, reasonable suscipion"
The actual reasoning is along the lines of we only want people to use surveillance when it is appropriate, with a valid reasonable suspicion. We specifically do not want to let cops (who in general have the same 1% criminal rate as the general population has), to be able to spy on us without a reason. Using the older, expensive methods we did not have to force them to get a search warrant because the natural expense would get them FIRED if they were stupid enough to try and tail someone for no good reason.
Now that we have expanded technical capacity, that natural limit has vanished. I (and I suspect most of my fellow slashdotters) would be happy to let them use GPS devices or drones to spy on us - as long as they get a Search Warrant first. But they, remembering that they did not have to do that for the old/expensive methods (and failing to recognize the natural limits of the old, expensive methods), don't bother to ask for a warrant.
I think this is theoretically possible, not 100% sure.
I want to see the sources of all mobile phone use within 100 ft of my car. Of course, ideally I would want a head's up type projection on the windows, showing all the morons using their phone (texting or voice - hands free or regular), in red. But I would settle for a 30 ft warning telling me that the guy in the next lane was doing stupid, dangerous stuff.
One simple way to know which idiots to be extra careful of.
You confused current mass with intake/outtake. While most organic life is water, we are talking about intake and out take, not current composition
The Cycle they mentioned means that plants consume 6 C20 (12 Carbon + 6 Oxygen) for every 5 H20 (10 Hydrogen and 5 Oxygen), every time they photosynthesize.
This means that while the end plant may be mostly water, they are consuming more of their weight in Carbon dioxide than in water.
So now you are asking, if the plant is consuming more carbon dioxide than water, what happens to the carbon dioxide, as the water is at least partly kept? The Carbon is kept, while the oxygen is given off. The amount of water that is taken in and kept is relatively small compared to the carbon that is kept PLUS the oxygen that is given off.
Air combat has been pretty much dominated by missiles because of radar and heat locked missiles.
If the missiles can't lock in, will that mean the return of the dogfight with dumb bullets instead of missiles?
Slashdot Mirror
Is is FAR more important to get a single non-approval vote method up and in place than to pick the single best one. In effect, your insistence on selecting the 'best' system, rather than making any choice available at all is in fact a kind of Approval voting. You are voting for the single candidate you consider to be the best, as opposed to voting for multiple candidates.
In my opinion, w galaxy should be a group of at least 1,000 stars orbiting one or more black holes
Note the dates, kids from the 1970s, at kids age 3-11 measured success when the kids were 32. I.E. Math says the study ended in 2000.
No, your fate is NOT predestined by the time you are 11.
1. Replacement philips screws
2. A philips screwdriver for said screws
3. A second, non-approved, screwdriver that they claim will easily remove the penta-stupid screws. As it is not an official penta screwdriver, this makeshift screwdriver is likely to damage the penta screws (but NOT the iphone).
I have no connection with ifixit, and have not even purchased their stuff. I can not attest to their quality.
2. Yes, special screwdrivers will stop the casual tinker, but not a business man, or any other determined person. This is why most normal businesses do not use weird screws as security. The idea just pisses off your customers WITHOUT in anyway affecting competitors.
3. Apple has always been a control freak of a company. Luckily, their are other products out there that are cheaper, just as well built, that encourage more tinkering (aka android).
Actually there has always been two answers. But Clarence being male, only knew about purchasing it. Clarence's wife knew the other one - get some guy to buy it for you.
But some idiot decided that it would be a bigger news story if they lied and claimed they stole the carbon credits.
Cancel the illegal trades, then go through all the normal procedures that you deal with when someone convinces a financial organization to give out cash to people that were not authorized to receive it.
1. They stole the 'carbon credits', not electronic cash.
2. You can't legally sell them anywhere except via the exchange.
3. The exchange tracks all legal sales.
4. Therefore, can't the government require the exchange to show all legal sales and invalidate the unapproved sales?
Isn't that the entire value of using the exchange? To track the sales of said credits?
Assuming that they have already used the exchange to sell the the fraudlenty exchanged credits, is it not a relatively easy matter to find the account that sold the stolen carbon credits and force them to buy them back?
This assumes of course that it was actually carbon credits that were stolen instead of cash stolen from un-authorized trades (in which case, the article needs to be re-written, removing the sensational crap)
Never had to call the credit card company to dispute a bill? They ask for the credit card #. I also guess you don't use a good reward program. I like my reward program (1% cash - same as all the rest - except they put the cash reward directly into a savings account one month after you pay the bill as opposed to year end.) Because if you have a reward program you like, you tend to use it for everything - even buying pizza on the phone.
Passenger Pigeon DNA is stored in the Smithsonian I bet we can find some Dodo DNA as well. Not sure about the F.G. Beaver.
Of course, this is in reality not much more likely than a random mosquito developing the ability to carry those diseases. But it is an intelligent feature to add on to almost all GM creatures, at least until we develop significant experience in handling them.
I can do without the giant sloth, short nosed bear, dire wolves or the saber tooth tigers.
2. Those that know the climate is getting warmer, but are being paid to say otherwise. They won't bet you.
3. Those that are too stupid and too poor to have any money to bet. They can't bet you.
4. Those that are too stupid but by shere chance have cash. These people will most likely not have enough money to pay off the debt when it comes due (but just wait, they assure you, as soon as a certain nigerian transaction is complete, they will be able to pay you off). If they by random luck have money then, they won't remember the bet/will deny they ever made it. They won't pay you.
Zero chance of getting your money back.
Try a nook. Much better (but not perfect) license than the Kindle. (Among other things, they don't demand the right to know what books you put on it.
I am saying that this is what is reasonable and any attempt to do anything else is pretty much scumbags trying to engage in fraud. I am not a dictator forcing people to do something unreasonable, I am the government arresting people for fraud. If you disagree that what I propose is a true and accurate description, that is one thing.
So they would be prosecuted for said fraud if they did what you suggest.
But to stand there and accuse me of being a petty tyrant when I won't let a lying piece of crap change the definition of the word 'sell' to mean that they continue to have control over the piece of hardware that I bought, then you need to buy a dictionary.
I am not giving rediciluous demands. If someone claims to be selling you something, then fine, you OWN it and they can't order you about what other programs you can run on it.
I think we need a law establishing the clear difference between own vs. rent. Own = single payment (or limited set of payments) ahead of time, no need to return property, free right to mod, upgrade, download anything to it. No cancellation fees allowed. They can charge to ship out (and charge shipping to return if broken and being replaced). No signature required Rent = a set of equal payments (no set up/start up/initiation fee) each good for a specified amount of time, property must be returned WITH ZERO SHIPPING COST (it is their property, they have to pay to ship it both ways - build it into the rent), zero rights to mod/upgrade/download anything. Cancellation fees allowed, but not to exceed remaining months. hand written signature expressely required for a rental agreement - and also for any extensions of the agreement. Services can be begun without the signature on a monthly usage, but no cancellation fee or contract is considered active without the signature. Electronic signatures not allowed unless an independent third party tracks said signature. (Sort of like In addition, they need to clearly state what is being sold vs what is being rented. You would be allowed to sell a product and then rent a service to it, but which is what needs to be clearly shown.
It is unreasonable, stupid and petty for someone to require an employee to buy tools you wish them to use for your corporation. Among other problems what if you don't like their service terms? What if they get something that does not have service where they work.
Just cancel the plan. Let them keep the phone if they want to start their own plan. The phone is already paid for and it's not like they are going to get much re-selling the phone. In addition, for everyone that keeps the phone, the state gets the benefit without paying for it. Besides, a company issued phone is pretty standard for anyone that might have to come in on the weekend. Pretty much every IT job, every management job. every lawyer, every doctor need a phone. I bet the state of California has lot of management, law, and IT jobs that need the phone.
By ignoring this rather important distinction, you are creating a false attack against a reasonable argument.
They have also shown that none of the idiots that were involved in the accidents caused by their dangerous actions thought they were doing anything dangerous. Many of them had clean driving records. Your record is not convincing to me.
For this reason, their activities are illegal. The excuse that you personally believe you are such a good drive that you can do it anyway is not considered a get out of jail free card even if it happens to be true (and studies have shown it in general NOT to be true).
OK, so in summary: 1) I am not attacking you in particular, 2) many other people are dangerous while using the phone while driving, and for all I know you are the best driver in the world and can in fact do this safely. 3) It doesn't matter because it is still illegal because other people are not as good as your god like driving. 4) You admit you engage in an illegal activity but claim it is not dangerous 'for you'. 5) The government doesn't care about youer particular claim to god-like driving ability. 6)we care about what is safe for most other people, not you in particular and base the laws on that, not your personal god like driving ability.
P.S. Other studies have shown that it is not a single person on the road that cause traffic jams, but a combination of two or more people with poor driving skills. For example two guys driving the exact same speed in the next lane prevents cars passing, slowing traffic in general. Or one idiot slamming on the brakes and the guy tailgating him.
Basically what it comes down to is that "easy and cheap = used all the time, with no actual reason, such as 'hey that guy is black'." while "tough and expensive = cops only use it when they have a valid, reasonable suscipion"
The actual reasoning is along the lines of we only want people to use surveillance when it is appropriate, with a valid reasonable suspicion. We specifically do not want to let cops (who in general have the same 1% criminal rate as the general population has), to be able to spy on us without a reason. Using the older, expensive methods we did not have to force them to get a search warrant because the natural expense would get them FIRED if they were stupid enough to try and tail someone for no good reason.
Now that we have expanded technical capacity, that natural limit has vanished. I (and I suspect most of my fellow slashdotters) would be happy to let them use GPS devices or drones to spy on us - as long as they get a Search Warrant first. But they, remembering that they did not have to do that for the old/expensive methods (and failing to recognize the natural limits of the old, expensive methods), don't bother to ask for a warrant.
I want to see the sources of all mobile phone use within 100 ft of my car. Of course, ideally I would want a head's up type projection on the windows, showing all the morons using their phone (texting or voice - hands free or regular), in red. But I would settle for a 30 ft warning telling me that the guy in the next lane was doing stupid, dangerous stuff.
One simple way to know which idiots to be extra careful of.
The Cycle they mentioned means that plants consume 6 C20 (12 Carbon + 6 Oxygen) for every 5 H20 (10 Hydrogen and 5 Oxygen), every time they photosynthesize.
This means that while the end plant may be mostly water, they are consuming more of their weight in Carbon dioxide than in water.
So now you are asking, if the plant is consuming more carbon dioxide than water, what happens to the carbon dioxide, as the water is at least partly kept? The Carbon is kept, while the oxygen is given off. The amount of water that is taken in and kept is relatively small compared to the carbon that is kept PLUS the oxygen that is given off.
from the standard attempt to make cars that drive themselves? (DARPA Grand Challenge)
Air combat has been pretty much dominated by missiles because of radar and heat locked missiles. If the missiles can't lock in, will that mean the return of the dogfight with dumb bullets instead of missiles?