The earth must have rotated faster around the sun 6000 years ago. I guess the earth was more streamlined when it was still flat.
No, but the day was several seconds shorter. The Earth's rotation slows down every year by a small amount.
Every system where a small group makes over sized profits and a larger group lose money is labeled a pyramid scheme, regardless of whether the people that lost money made terrible decisions along the way or not.
Then every successful corporation is a pyramid scheme.
When it hasn't gotten any media attention for a while, and it suddenly gets some attention, the price goes up for a small time, and then it drops like a stone again.
Recently, I would have to say that the exact opposite is the case. It remains fairly constant until some inflammatory and misleading article such as this one comes out.
How can I short this currency?
I believe MtGox was working on options trading for BitCoin and one would assume they might allowed short trading. If not, then just buy a Put option at the current price (that ought to be cheap right?) and then at some later date come in and cover your Put at the presumably lower price, or sell your Put, which is usually a better deal than exercising it.
However, I wouldn't recommend shorting it at this point. Once the dump story dujour moves on, it will probably move back to its stable price range which lately has been in the 5.50-7.00 range. It is usually much better to just buy it cheap when someone posts a dump story like this one. Then once the fickle public moves on and the price meanders back up, sell it.
That would be a good theory if it wasn't the fact that every single article about them was negative. Also usually inflammatory and misleading. Kind of like this one.
And by "print money" you mean "waste electricity while participating in a pyramid scheme that was destined to fail."
Right?
Nope. Because Bitcoin is not a scheme whereby people use newcomers money to pay people who have been in the scheme longer. In fact, Bitcoin does not ask people for money at all.
I have seen other similar abuses of the TSA system. If you get ticket taker at the check-in hassles you and you don't merely bend over and take it, they will put on your ticket to single you out for "enhanced security". If the airline screws up and you end up stuck overnight at your connecting city, then when they actually get you on a flight the next day, you are automatically singled out for "Enhanced Security" because you "made changes to your travel plans within 24 hours of the travel time". Granted you are more likely to want to bring a bomb on an airplane after such an event.
If the defender is looking for a particular kind of person, the attacker will simply go with somebody who doesn't match the profile.
Unless of course, that particular attacker's religious beliefs are that women are barely even human and not worthy of such a high honor as being used for a suicide mission.
A possibly more effective solution: Refuse to fly. Take a bus, take a train, drive, or forgo travel, but don't pay into the system by buying a plane ticket.
Then they'll just complain that we are "pirating" air travel and put in even more draconian security measures for those who still travel by air.
You get more radiation from being in a high altitude, unshielded aircraft
Fine, then they can use that radiation to screen me instead of at the TSA station.
To be fair, usually commercial blimps and cruise liners don't crash head-first into similar-sized obstacles like icebergs
Crashing headfirst into an iceberg would have been an improvement for the Titanic. At least it would have made it to New York.
If someone started offering a service where you were knocked out at boarding and woke up at your destination I would so use it!
It already pretty much works for me this way, anyway. I usually stay up late the night before just to be sure.
Clearly, you have no idea of what you are talking about. No one can keep evolution from happening
Well, I know that, but clearly the same people who believe evolution is the only correct answer to how we got here oddly enough have some strange desire to try to prevent it from happening. Survival of the fittest seems to be good enough for the schools, but not for practice.
Just out of curiosity. I would love to hear what "claims of evolution" you are talking about, as opposed to the ones you accept.
I think a lot of conservatives feel that Survival of the fittest makes a lot of sense. We can see that animals tend to choose mates that are stronger, more able to collect food, or what-have-you. At least animals aside from humans do. I for one can clearly see how a rhino with a 1 inch longer horn is going to be more likely to survive than one with a shorter horn. However, what conservatives cannot understand is how the first rhinos came about. Surely the very first one wasn't just born with a long horn (along with enough others at the same time to provide a sustainable breeding population). So clearly, the very first rhino like animal had to have a had a small nub of a horn that grew over generations. However, a small nub of a horn provides no advantage over no horn at all, so over the generations, there would have been no reason for the big horn trait to have developed. This is just one small example, and there are millions of examples. I'm not one to leap to the "God did it" mantra, but neither am I one to blindly believe that "evolution did it". I want to understand why or how, and I am not one to stop looking for new answers just because the current tool works well 80% of the time.
Republicans are against evolution and climate change science; Democrats are for them.
That's not true. Republicans just don't believe in certain claims of evolution. Democrats, on the other hand, seek to actively prevent evolution: Not the teaching of it it. Obviously, they desperately people want to know about evolution. But actively, the seek to prevent evolution from happening.
Absolutely. The solutions is a cheap PC running windows, which can easily be configured to allow one and only one app to run at login, and to log off if the application is closed.
Please stop using technology for the sake of technology to increase my already outrageous healthcare costs.
While I'm not a huge fan of it, I far prefer targeted advertisements over the old days of the internet when every page was, 1 popup, 1 pop-under, 2 flash advertisements with sound, and a 15 second commercial between pages.
Your experience with the "old days of the internet" differs from mine. My old days of the internet consisted of practically no advertisement whatsoever. The only sites on the internet were ones where people provided free content out of the goodness of their heart, or commercial interests whose primary source of income was non-internet and for whom the internet was merely a way of disseminating product updates, product information, contact information, online manuals, self-serve customer service and other cost savings measures.
Depending on which site you look at the average price of a new car is between $30,000 and $33,000. This is nearly double the amount of a new car even using your figures.And median household income has gone up, by your numbers, by only $10,000, despite the fact that twice as many people in the household are working. So the numbers still hold true.
I don't know if the fact that it "only costs a little more" than something that costs twice what it should is necessarily a good argument. As far as I am concerned, the cost of middle-of-the-road, non-luxury vehicle is about twice what it should be, so anything costing more than that is even less appealing to me. In the 1960's, the average cost of a brand new car cost about a quarter of the average household income. Now, the average cost of a brand new car is over half of the average household income. Even worse, in the 1960's only one member of the household usually worked, now it is two members of the household working. So, the effective cost of a car in terms of the average person's salary has gone up by a factor of 4. This is unacceptable.
But they obviously boast you'll get lower rates if you agree to this.
Out of curiosity, I signed up for this program. After I think 6 weeks, they had enough data and asked for the devices back. They gave my wife and me about 13% discount and my stepson 0%. So overall, it did have the affect of lowering the rates. It was also interesting that you could view your own data, so positive feedback was possible. However, I did have some disagreements with what the data said about hard stops from time to time. I specifically remembered a few smooth drives with no rapid deceleration where it said I had a few, and then driving the exact same way again, it would say I had no hard brakes, so after awhile, I just started ignoring it as noise. The only accurate part of the device was time of day that I drive and how many miles was probably reasonably accurate.
Thus the insurance runs out of money.
Oh, don't worry, insurance companies are in no danger of losing money no matter how badly the manage it. They overcharge enough to compensate for any unintended consequences of mismanaging actuarials.
At least as long as they are not insuring mortgages.
That's true, but I was more thinking about when medical claims get involved in the traffic accident. Like when someone runs into you, and then claims they had a green light, and they are unable to get out of their car due to the pain, but somehow all three people in your car were not injured even though they are the same size car. Not that anything like that has ever happened to me or anything.
But the more narrowly the insurance company focuses on the exact risk I have, the closer they get to offering no value, because I might as well carry the risk myself.
On many "insurance" items, I would tend to agree, but in the case of medical insurance and auto insurance, often the amount you would have had to pay out is much higher because the insurance company adjudicates it down. In reality, what we should be doing is to tell the insurance company to give us a good rate because we will pay for all the damage and all they have to do is send their lawyers to fight for us.
Does Apple actually make a MILSPEC iPad? If not, what are their plans for what to do if the "big one" finally happens and all consumer electronics are fried?
Interesting that you should mention that. I happened to be reading more about this issue and found that the approval process is actually quite involved. Since the FAA does not control the building of ipads and the source of components is not controlled, each individual serial number to be used in that environment must be certified independently. Not all of them pass, either. I would have to guess that the cost of the testing of each one is probably higher than the cost of the actual unit.
Why don't they build the device into the electronics of the plane?
Because they already did that, but the pilots don't get to play angry birds on the integrated devices.
Slashdot Mirror
Remind me again, which which hand should I throw stones when I'm murdering women for having been raped?
Whichever hand you don't sin with.
The earth must have rotated faster around the sun 6000 years ago. I guess the earth was more streamlined when it was still flat.
No, but the day was several seconds shorter. The Earth's rotation slows down every year by a small amount.
Every system where a small group makes over sized profits and a larger group lose money is labeled a pyramid scheme, regardless of whether the people that lost money made terrible decisions along the way or not.
Then every successful corporation is a pyramid scheme.
When it hasn't gotten any media attention for a while, and it suddenly gets some attention, the price goes up for a small time, and then it drops like a stone again.
Recently, I would have to say that the exact opposite is the case. It remains fairly constant until some inflammatory and misleading article such as this one comes out.
How can I short this currency?
I believe MtGox was working on options trading for BitCoin and one would assume they might allowed short trading. If not, then just buy a Put option at the current price (that ought to be cheap right?) and then at some later date come in and cover your Put at the presumably lower price, or sell your Put, which is usually a better deal than exercising it.
However, I wouldn't recommend shorting it at this point. Once the dump story dujour moves on, it will probably move back to its stable price range which lately has been in the 5.50-7.00 range. It is usually much better to just buy it cheap when someone posts a dump story like this one. Then once the fickle public moves on and the price meanders back up, sell it.
That would be a good theory if it wasn't the fact that every single article about them was negative. Also usually inflammatory and misleading. Kind of like this one.
And by "print money" you mean "waste electricity while participating in a pyramid scheme that was destined to fail." Right?
Nope. Because Bitcoin is not a scheme whereby people use newcomers money to pay people who have been in the scheme longer. In fact, Bitcoin does not ask people for money at all.
I have seen other similar abuses of the TSA system. If you get ticket taker at the check-in hassles you and you don't merely bend over and take it, they will put on your ticket to single you out for "enhanced security". If the airline screws up and you end up stuck overnight at your connecting city, then when they actually get you on a flight the next day, you are automatically singled out for "Enhanced Security" because you "made changes to your travel plans within 24 hours of the travel time". Granted you are more likely to want to bring a bomb on an airplane after such an event.
If the defender is looking for a particular kind of person, the attacker will simply go with somebody who doesn't match the profile.
Unless of course, that particular attacker's religious beliefs are that women are barely even human and not worthy of such a high honor as being used for a suicide mission.
A possibly more effective solution: Refuse to fly. Take a bus, take a train, drive, or forgo travel, but don't pay into the system by buying a plane ticket.
Then they'll just complain that we are "pirating" air travel and put in even more draconian security measures for those who still travel by air.
You get more radiation from being in a high altitude, unshielded aircraft
Fine, then they can use that radiation to screen me instead of at the TSA station.
To be fair, usually commercial blimps and cruise liners don't crash head-first into similar-sized obstacles like icebergs
Crashing headfirst into an iceberg would have been an improvement for the Titanic. At least it would have made it to New York.
If someone started offering a service where you were knocked out at boarding and woke up at your destination I would so use it!
It already pretty much works for me this way, anyway. I usually stay up late the night before just to be sure.
Clearly, you have no idea of what you are talking about. No one can keep evolution from happening
Well, I know that, but clearly the same people who believe evolution is the only correct answer to how we got here oddly enough have some strange desire to try to prevent it from happening. Survival of the fittest seems to be good enough for the schools, but not for practice.
Just out of curiosity. I would love to hear what "claims of evolution" you are talking about, as opposed to the ones you accept.
I think a lot of conservatives feel that Survival of the fittest makes a lot of sense. We can see that animals tend to choose mates that are stronger, more able to collect food, or what-have-you. At least animals aside from humans do. I for one can clearly see how a rhino with a 1 inch longer horn is going to be more likely to survive than one with a shorter horn. However, what conservatives cannot understand is how the first rhinos came about. Surely the very first one wasn't just born with a long horn (along with enough others at the same time to provide a sustainable breeding population). So clearly, the very first rhino like animal had to have a had a small nub of a horn that grew over generations. However, a small nub of a horn provides no advantage over no horn at all, so over the generations, there would have been no reason for the big horn trait to have developed. This is just one small example, and there are millions of examples. I'm not one to leap to the "God did it" mantra, but neither am I one to blindly believe that "evolution did it". I want to understand why or how, and I am not one to stop looking for new answers just because the current tool works well 80% of the time.
Republicans are against evolution and climate change science; Democrats are for them.
That's not true. Republicans just don't believe in certain claims of evolution. Democrats, on the other hand, seek to actively prevent evolution: Not the teaching of it it. Obviously, they desperately people want to know about evolution. But actively, the seek to prevent evolution from happening.
Absolutely. The solutions is a cheap PC running windows, which can easily be configured to allow one and only one app to run at login, and to log off if the application is closed.
Please stop using technology for the sake of technology to increase my already outrageous healthcare costs.
While I'm not a huge fan of it, I far prefer targeted advertisements over the old days of the internet when every page was, 1 popup, 1 pop-under, 2 flash advertisements with sound, and a 15 second commercial between pages.
Your experience with the "old days of the internet" differs from mine. My old days of the internet consisted of practically no advertisement whatsoever. The only sites on the internet were ones where people provided free content out of the goodness of their heart, or commercial interests whose primary source of income was non-internet and for whom the internet was merely a way of disseminating product updates, product information, contact information, online manuals, self-serve customer service and other cost savings measures.
Depending on which site you look at the average price of a new car is between $30,000 and $33,000. This is nearly double the amount of a new car even using your figures.And median household income has gone up, by your numbers, by only $10,000, despite the fact that twice as many people in the household are working. So the numbers still hold true.
I don't know if the fact that it "only costs a little more" than something that costs twice what it should is necessarily a good argument. As far as I am concerned, the cost of middle-of-the-road, non-luxury vehicle is about twice what it should be, so anything costing more than that is even less appealing to me. In the 1960's, the average cost of a brand new car cost about a quarter of the average household income. Now, the average cost of a brand new car is over half of the average household income. Even worse, in the 1960's only one member of the household usually worked, now it is two members of the household working. So, the effective cost of a car in terms of the average person's salary has gone up by a factor of 4. This is unacceptable.
But they obviously boast you'll get lower rates if you agree to this.
Out of curiosity, I signed up for this program. After I think 6 weeks, they had enough data and asked for the devices back. They gave my wife and me about 13% discount and my stepson 0%. So overall, it did have the affect of lowering the rates. It was also interesting that you could view your own data, so positive feedback was possible. However, I did have some disagreements with what the data said about hard stops from time to time. I specifically remembered a few smooth drives with no rapid deceleration where it said I had a few, and then driving the exact same way again, it would say I had no hard brakes, so after awhile, I just started ignoring it as noise. The only accurate part of the device was time of day that I drive and how many miles was probably reasonably accurate.
Thus the insurance runs out of money.
Oh, don't worry, insurance companies are in no danger of losing money no matter how badly the manage it. They overcharge enough to compensate for any unintended consequences of mismanaging actuarials.
At least as long as they are not insuring mortgages.
That's true, but I was more thinking about when medical claims get involved in the traffic accident. Like when someone runs into you, and then claims they had a green light, and they are unable to get out of their car due to the pain, but somehow all three people in your car were not injured even though they are the same size car. Not that anything like that has ever happened to me or anything.
But the more narrowly the insurance company focuses on the exact risk I have, the closer they get to offering no value, because I might as well carry the risk myself.
On many "insurance" items, I would tend to agree, but in the case of medical insurance and auto insurance, often the amount you would have had to pay out is much higher because the insurance company adjudicates it down. In reality, what we should be doing is to tell the insurance company to give us a good rate because we will pay for all the damage and all they have to do is send their lawyers to fight for us.
Does Apple actually make a MILSPEC iPad? If not, what are their plans for what to do if the "big one" finally happens and all consumer electronics are fried?
Interesting that you should mention that. I happened to be reading more about this issue and found that the approval process is actually quite involved. Since the FAA does not control the building of ipads and the source of components is not controlled, each individual serial number to be used in that environment must be certified independently. Not all of them pass, either. I would have to guess that the cost of the testing of each one is probably higher than the cost of the actual unit.
Why don't they build the device into the electronics of the plane?
Because they already did that, but the pilots don't get to play angry birds on the integrated devices.