Sounds like the MTA is looking to be paid off by Google before they take the new Communist administration of New York City for a spin and try to hustle Google in its new NYC location. Watch for Google "sponsoring" all kinds of bull shit money-wasting programs around the city to "help the community" (the key word we now use for paying off hustlers).
realistic. subject matter makes an interesting study -- that's all. no one ever claimed that everything succeeds in the free market. but hey, if you want to argue with claims that no one made in order to promote a your lying narrative, go ahead. just don't, for a second, claim that you are on the side of "the good guys" or the "truth" or "science" or "reason." You are on the side of destruction, human misery and violence. Free markets are the immune system to the pathological behavior. That is not to say that pathogens don't occur. The market fixes them. You just happen to be on the side of the pathology. I am sure it's fun... until you burn out. And you will. The only question is how many people you'll burn with you. But the immune system will eventually correct the damage that you do. In the end, you'll still be irrelevant.
So tired of you idiots. I Mean, since you can only result to lies to say anything bad about President Obama, he must be doing a pretty damn good job.
Let me fix that for you: "since his opponents can be dismissed by mere insults, it's profitable to be on his side if you want to be a criminal."
I like how you ignores the fact that under his plans everything has improved. deficit? better. Market? healthier. Jobs? unemployment continues to decline.
Clearly, this pure nonsense. The only reason this President (who is criminal in such obvious, brazen and obnoxious way) has not been impeached is that given a history of past racism, impeaching the first black President would be unthinkable. He has carte blanche to commit crimes and he is charging it to the fullest. Hopefully, the country can still survive after he is done. Because, believe you me, immigration is a pretty damn hard undertaking.
the free market fairy does not actually solve all problems
That's because she doesn't exist. Nor does anyone claim that she does. Market is people interacting willingly. Regulated markets is people forced to interact and to pretend that they do so willingly.
That's pretty amazing considering how big they were. Shows how much more stable bitcoin is compared to the US Dollar. By comparison, Obama administration stole 25% of all the money that the federal government was spending in 2009-2011. May be this is not an entirely fair comparison... the "stimulus" was about $1 trillion dollars that Obama administration stole in 2009-2011, but you can argue that it was only $1 trillion out of a $15 trillion economy. However, fiat money is issued exclusively through debt. And given that the money that Obama administration steals matches, almost dollar-for-dollar, the money that the Fed buys in bonds, that means $4 trillion dollars stolen (the amount of bonds on Fed's books) out of the $15 trillion that is the federal debt. This still give you a roughly 25% figure. 6% due to either technical difficulty (or even fraud) is a much better deal.
You are not there, yet, grasshopper. You think that IDE is an easier way of solving the same problems. What it really does is allow one to solve problems which are impossible to solve without them. A good IDE *is* the higher level language.
Nah, it's not "assistive." It's enabling. By allowing you to pay attention to what a machine cannot figure out, an IDE expands the complexity of the problems one can solve. A good IDE is like a car for a good runner. The problem is not the programmers who insist on writing all code in text. It's the people who teach them to do that. The world of programming has learned how to solve problems which were common 30 years ago. Unfortunately, most educators are stuck in the past (that's why they are stuck educating). And they try to create a certain aura of merit around not using known solutions to known problems, but reinventing the bicycle. Sure, a Swiss watch is the best of its kind. But is it the best solution for the problem of knowing the time?
Right. But she is not a British lawyer. Nor is Snowden a British subject. So, in Britain, she is just a foreigner visiting someone who Britain may consider a spy. Since she does not act as a lawyer, in any capacity, while in Britain, she does not enjoy an attorney client privilege. And unless she can defend him against any charges brought against him in Britain (if any), she cannot have any attorney client privilege in Britain. So not questioning her would be fundamentally irresponsible of the airport staff and probably of the British security services. American law simply does not carry weight in Britain. They have their own laws. And you know... you do have to comply with the laws of the country in which you are physically present... or you are not in compliance with the law... these are pretty trivial concepts.
Out myself? Out myself as who? Heh? I didn't say anything about what Snowden revealed. I just don't know enough about it. But an American lawyer in Britain does not and should expect to enjoy any kind of privilege. And as long as Britain considers Snowden a potential spy, those who communicate with him have to assume that they will be treated accordingly. I don't think it's thuggery to not treat a foreign lawyer as a non-lawyer. I think it's quite presumptuous, actually, to think that the privilege that exists in the United States would be automatically afforded in all countries.
Is she American? In this case, she is a not a lawyer in Britain. She is a passenger boarding a plane after talking with a man who reveled secrets, some of which, were Britain's national secrets. If she didn't get strip searched (with a good cause, too), she should be thankful. Or is she a British lawyer? In which case, why the heck does Snowden need her? He is not British, nor is he in Britain. British lawyer would serve him no purpose. So my money is on Britain searching a foreigner (who happens to be a lawyer, but not in Britain) under the suspicion that she is helping to carry information to a known spy. Harassment, ha?
running chrome on single core? that's an adventure. chrome takes 100mb just to sneeze and say hello. oh, and don't you dare live it idling for 5 mins. that'll be 1mb per min, thank you very much. yeah, yeah... memory has "nothing to do with the number of cores"... except being HIGHLY CORRELATED... c'mon... i dare you to say correlation does not imply causation... because causation is not the issue here... correlation (ie, simultaneous co-occurrence) is
Is the consultant really an idiot or does he not bring anything useful. If he has expertise that you don't have and do need, then you need to make the case that he can't communicate that expertise properly. If he doesn't have expertise that you don't have but do need, you should explain that the scope of his expertise is outside the scope of what your project requires. Many people have accomplished a great deal in life which wouldn't help you at all if you tried to work with them. Jobs are often too narrowly focused to need general experts. Of course, if you are just a dick who was hoping that you'd use someone's else's money to hire an expert and then use him as a grunt, you deserve what's coming your way.
Everybody thinks that their experience is somehow indicative of a new age in human development. As a specie we are the we always were. Therefore, any wisdom of the ages, which exposes general tendencies of human impulses, is as true today as it always was. Power corrupts. If you untie EPA's hands and let them use their "best judgement" rather scientifically sound methodologies, they will, in time, abuse that power. And then that power will attract those who relish abuse of power and they will abuse it more.
2080? heh. Reminds me of Disraeli saying (and I am paraphrasing) that politicians enjoy a the privilege heretofore only afforded to whores - power without responsibility. I guess climatologists, too, now. Making predictions not verifiable until after their retirement? Check.
Thinking that Windows is dead is so cute. Yeah, I had the "hate it" attitude around 3.11, too. But, you know, it's been a while. Win XP is still used after 13 years. You'd be hard pressed to find a linux distro with the same longevity. Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a kernel release with the same longevity. In fact Win XP is so good that I only realized how good Win 7 was about a year ago. As desktop environments go, it's absolutely ridiculously amazing. Writing services for it is a pain, but I am guessing only because I never formally studied it and had to figure it out on my own. Windows 8 sucks? I have no idea. No one uses it. Win 7 is good enough. But if it really is a pain, it's a continuation of the pattern. The even-versioned releases of MS products always flop.
If only there was a system for measuring how much people are willing to give for what they give up or for they create... some token maybe that would the exchange countable and enumerable... so that all these "feed good" philosophies would not be based on what one person thinks the exchange rate should be for ideas, but on what all participants think the exchange rate should be for ideas.... some universal enumerative token... nah, can't happen.
Sadly, while I agree that reproducible science is the gold standard, it's often not possible. How can a cosmologist repeat a supernova to make sure things happened as they believe?
Well, if he is lucky, it was observed with multiple sensors. If not, he has to hope that the data he collected did not have accidental noise due to equipment malfunction. But if there is only one source, of the data, he can't really be certain. Either way, he can't make the claim that he observed it without publishing the data based on which he makes that claim (peer reviewed publications do not currently require publishing data).
Observational science is reproducible. You can observe artifacts of events rather than events themselves. Speaking of climatology (is that really a science now?) studies. A tree-rings study is definitely reproducible. So is any observation of CO2 levels trapped in arctic ice. At the very least, the data itself should be available for re-examination. Most scientific journals don't impose the requirement to publish the data on the authors, so even peer review is no guarantee that data matches the conclusions. And I don't mean just in the controversial fields like climate studies. Even the least controversial ones simply don't have the requirement to publish the observed data. Imposing this requirement will unquestionably improve scientific inquiry at large.
Slashdot Mirror
They didn't lose their spine. They ran out of companies to steal from. They have to attract some new ones before they can steal from them again.
Sounds like the MTA is looking to be paid off by Google before they take the new Communist administration of New York City for a spin and try to hustle Google in its new NYC location. Watch for Google "sponsoring" all kinds of bull shit money-wasting programs around the city to "help the community" (the key word we now use for paying off hustlers).
realistic. subject matter makes an interesting study -- that's all. no one ever claimed that everything succeeds in the free market. but hey, if you want to argue with claims that no one made in order to promote a your lying narrative, go ahead. just don't, for a second, claim that you are on the side of "the good guys" or the "truth" or "science" or "reason." You are on the side of destruction, human misery and violence. Free markets are the immune system to the pathological behavior. That is not to say that pathogens don't occur. The market fixes them. You just happen to be on the side of the pathology. I am sure it's fun... until you burn out. And you will. The only question is how many people you'll burn with you. But the immune system will eventually correct the damage that you do. In the end, you'll still be irrelevant.
Every single dollar spend on the "stimulus" was graft. Done.
So tired of you idiots. I Mean, since you can only result to lies to say anything bad about President Obama, he must be doing a pretty damn good job.
Let me fix that for you: "since his opponents can be dismissed by mere insults, it's profitable to be on his side if you want to be a criminal."
I like how you ignores the fact that under his plans everything has improved. deficit? better. Market? healthier. Jobs? unemployment continues to decline.
Clearly, this pure nonsense. The only reason this President (who is criminal in such obvious, brazen and obnoxious way) has not been impeached is that given a history of past racism, impeaching the first black President would be unthinkable. He has carte blanche to commit crimes and he is charging it to the fullest. Hopefully, the country can still survive after he is done. Because, believe you me, immigration is a pretty damn hard undertaking.
If you really want to trash BItcoin, you do side a disservice by making arguments that are so easily refuted.
the free market fairy does not actually solve all problems
That's because she doesn't exist. Nor does anyone claim that she does. Market is people interacting willingly. Regulated markets is people forced to interact and to pretend that they do so willingly.
What do you mean final stage? The Ponzi scheme has collapsed. Mt Gox was the ponzi scheme. Bitcoin cannot be a ponzi scheme by design.
That's pretty amazing considering how big they were. Shows how much more stable bitcoin is compared to the US Dollar. By comparison, Obama administration stole 25% of all the money that the federal government was spending in 2009-2011. May be this is not an entirely fair comparison... the "stimulus" was about $1 trillion dollars that Obama administration stole in 2009-2011, but you can argue that it was only $1 trillion out of a $15 trillion economy. However, fiat money is issued exclusively through debt. And given that the money that Obama administration steals matches, almost dollar-for-dollar, the money that the Fed buys in bonds, that means $4 trillion dollars stolen (the amount of bonds on Fed's books) out of the $15 trillion that is the federal debt. This still give you a roughly 25% figure. 6% due to either technical difficulty (or even fraud) is a much better deal.
You are not there, yet, grasshopper. You think that IDE is an easier way of solving the same problems. What it really does is allow one to solve problems which are impossible to solve without them. A good IDE *is* the higher level language.
Nah, it's not "assistive." It's enabling. By allowing you to pay attention to what a machine cannot figure out, an IDE expands the complexity of the problems one can solve. A good IDE is like a car for a good runner. The problem is not the programmers who insist on writing all code in text. It's the people who teach them to do that. The world of programming has learned how to solve problems which were common 30 years ago. Unfortunately, most educators are stuck in the past (that's why they are stuck educating). And they try to create a certain aura of merit around not using known solutions to known problems, but reinventing the bicycle. Sure, a Swiss watch is the best of its kind. But is it the best solution for the problem of knowing the time?
Right. But she is not a British lawyer. Nor is Snowden a British subject. So, in Britain, she is just a foreigner visiting someone who Britain may consider a spy. Since she does not act as a lawyer, in any capacity, while in Britain, she does not enjoy an attorney client privilege. And unless she can defend him against any charges brought against him in Britain (if any), she cannot have any attorney client privilege in Britain. So not questioning her would be fundamentally irresponsible of the airport staff and probably of the British security services. American law simply does not carry weight in Britain. They have their own laws. And you know... you do have to comply with the laws of the country in which you are physically present... or you are not in compliance with the law... these are pretty trivial concepts.
Out myself? Out myself as who? Heh? I didn't say anything about what Snowden revealed. I just don't know enough about it. But an American lawyer in Britain does not and should expect to enjoy any kind of privilege. And as long as Britain considers Snowden a potential spy, those who communicate with him have to assume that they will be treated accordingly. I don't think it's thuggery to not treat a foreign lawyer as a non-lawyer. I think it's quite presumptuous, actually, to think that the privilege that exists in the United States would be automatically afforded in all countries.
pathetic little cunt.
Guess you like em big. That's a first.
Is she American? In this case, she is a not a lawyer in Britain. She is a passenger boarding a plane after talking with a man who reveled secrets, some of which, were Britain's national secrets. If she didn't get strip searched (with a good cause, too), she should be thankful. Or is she a British lawyer? In which case, why the heck does Snowden need her? He is not British, nor is he in Britain. British lawyer would serve him no purpose. So my money is on Britain searching a foreigner (who happens to be a lawyer, but not in Britain) under the suspicion that she is helping to carry information to a known spy. Harassment, ha?
Even a broken clock, as the saying goes... guess it's his 15 seconds of being right for a change.
running chrome on single core? that's an adventure. chrome takes 100mb just to sneeze and say hello. oh, and don't you dare live it idling for 5 mins. that'll be 1mb per min, thank you very much. yeah, yeah... memory has "nothing to do with the number of cores"... except being HIGHLY CORRELATED... c'mon... i dare you to say correlation does not imply causation... because causation is not the issue here... correlation (ie, simultaneous co-occurrence) is
Is the consultant really an idiot or does he not bring anything useful. If he has expertise that you don't have and do need, then you need to make the case that he can't communicate that expertise properly. If he doesn't have expertise that you don't have but do need, you should explain that the scope of his expertise is outside the scope of what your project requires. Many people have accomplished a great deal in life which wouldn't help you at all if you tried to work with them. Jobs are often too narrowly focused to need general experts. Of course, if you are just a dick who was hoping that you'd use someone's else's money to hire an expert and then use him as a grunt, you deserve what's coming your way.
Everybody thinks that their experience is somehow indicative of a new age in human development. As a specie we are the we always were. Therefore, any wisdom of the ages, which exposes general tendencies of human impulses, is as true today as it always was. Power corrupts. If you untie EPA's hands and let them use their "best judgement" rather scientifically sound methodologies, they will, in time, abuse that power. And then that power will attract those who relish abuse of power and they will abuse it more.
2080? heh. Reminds me of Disraeli saying (and I am paraphrasing) that politicians enjoy a the privilege heretofore only afforded to whores - power without responsibility. I guess climatologists, too, now. Making predictions not verifiable until after their retirement? Check.
DOS 4, DOS 6, Win98, Vista, Win8... all even-versioned. Like I said, the even-versioned ones flop.
Thinking that Windows is dead is so cute. Yeah, I had the "hate it" attitude around 3.11, too. But, you know, it's been a while. Win XP is still used after 13 years. You'd be hard pressed to find a linux distro with the same longevity. Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a kernel release with the same longevity. In fact Win XP is so good that I only realized how good Win 7 was about a year ago. As desktop environments go, it's absolutely ridiculously amazing. Writing services for it is a pain, but I am guessing only because I never formally studied it and had to figure it out on my own. Windows 8 sucks? I have no idea. No one uses it. Win 7 is good enough. But if it really is a pain, it's a continuation of the pattern. The even-versioned releases of MS products always flop.
If only there was a system for measuring how much people are willing to give for what they give up or for they create... some token maybe that would the exchange countable and enumerable... so that all these "feed good" philosophies would not be based on what one person thinks the exchange rate should be for ideas, but on what all participants think the exchange rate should be for ideas.... some universal enumerative token... nah, can't happen.
Sadly, while I agree that reproducible science is the gold standard, it's often not possible. How can a cosmologist repeat a supernova to make sure things happened as they believe?
Well, if he is lucky, it was observed with multiple sensors. If not, he has to hope that the data he collected did not have accidental noise due to equipment malfunction. But if there is only one source, of the data, he can't really be certain. Either way, he can't make the claim that he observed it without publishing the data based on which he makes that claim (peer reviewed publications do not currently require publishing data).
Observational science is reproducible. You can observe artifacts of events rather than events themselves. Speaking of climatology (is that really a science now?) studies. A tree-rings study is definitely reproducible. So is any observation of CO2 levels trapped in arctic ice. At the very least, the data itself should be available for re-examination. Most scientific journals don't impose the requirement to publish the data on the authors, so even peer review is no guarantee that data matches the conclusions. And I don't mean just in the controversial fields like climate studies. Even the least controversial ones simply don't have the requirement to publish the observed data. Imposing this requirement will unquestionably improve scientific inquiry at large.