He received an SMS which he believed to be from Vodaphone, stating that they were having network difficulties and he would experience loss of cell service for the next 24 hours.
They should set up an opt-in system where they simply trash any mail destined for your address which is addressed to "residential customer." (or whatever it is they actually use)
Then, they still get paid by advertisers who want to mail bulk rate advertisements but don't have the overhead of actually transporting that mail past the first sorting facility it goes to.
Assuming incompetence before malice is usually a good practice, but not necessarily when referring to Congress. They knowingly and willfully structure accounting to hide as much as they can. It would not surprise me to find out the pre-pay requirement for employee healthcare was structured solely for the purpose of helping disguise the budget deficit.
I don't mean the above to say it was meant to disguise ALL the deficit; that would be sheer stupidity to claim. But you can certainly shrink the appearance of a gaping hole with nickel-and-dime accounting. Just look at how much companies like Enron and Worldcom were able to cover up, and how long they were able to cover it up.
That's not really the point either. You can build on older technologies if you have the people who know how they work in the first place. All of the building blocks were there to develop better implementations, but that is no longer possible. It's being re-invented because there's absolutely no other option. Nobody can re-use any of the work that went into launching heavy rockets into space that might be applicable today. That might be a small amount of help, or a large amount. The point is, nobody knows anymore.
I didn't say anything about "reinventing." I said building more of what they have.
It costs a lot more to invent, test, and deliver something than it does to build another of something which already works. There's likely to be a lot of efficiency improvements with newer heavy lift rockets because of advances in technology. That has nothing to do with the point I made, which apparently went whizzing over your head.
This is actually why the space program is in the state it's in. They can't build more heavy lift rockets because there is nobody left who actually knows how they were built in the first place.
I'm pretty sure that's just a shorter restatement of the point the AC you were replying to was making. It was the AC above that who was making the distinction between the two.
This is far too simple a solution to exist in most places in the US.
The interesting thing is, some of the most backwater places I've lived have increased recycling rates simply because they did exactly what should be done: charged what it actually costs, by weight, to use a landfill based on the cost of producing a new landfill. Recyclable items were not chargeable so long as you separated them out.
For all the screaming above about libertarians, this is one that qualifies as a libertarian one: the cost is borne by those who use it, and isn't hidden or manipulated to provide preferential treatment to anyone.
All it requires in a city is a separate bin, just like recyclables. Don't do it, pay higher rates based on the weight of the organic material. If it's costing too much for landfills, it means their rates are too low. Oh wait, we can't raise rates because that would fall disproportionately on the poor as a percentage of income.
There's a big difference between a work program which makes useful things efficiently and a work program which is intentionally inefficient in order to employ as many people as they can get away with.
Someone infected with the 1918 flu strain has a significantly better chance of recovery under modern medical care than their 1918 counterpart.
Change that to "marginally better" and I might agree with you. There is still no effective treatment against a cytokine storm reaction, which is what primarily killed people in 1918. All current treatments are still experimental.
There might be marginal cases where better monitoring would have resulted in fewer deaths, but the vast majority would find no better help with current medical technology.
The population density of the California coast is 25% of Japan's density. Even if you take total land mass comparisons, it's still half the density at best.
As for route "straightness," coasts provide just as many problems as landforms do overland.
The cost of moving massive numbers of people through dense population centers over a relatively small comparative distance vs. the cost of property acquisition would be a major difference.
Multiply the population density of California by 4x, and it might then become cost-effective.
That is the most ignorant, or sleaziest (not sure which), description of how settlers dealt with natives I believe I've ever read.
Just because a people don't have borders written out on pieces of paper does not justify displacing them and shooting those who resist that displacement.
Yes, it is probably true that most US citizens see their own personal views as the "universal" truth. It's one of the few countries where discussion of politics including people who don't already generally agree with each other is usually a particularly nasty affair.
That said, there is a logical argument for seeing government as the enemy (in the US, that is). The US is one of the most heterogeneous countries in the world. There are many regions, both small and large, that do not even slightly resemble other regions culturally, socially, politically, intellectually, or almost any combination of the above.
The people who are able to raise the enormous capital necessary to become elected play on these differences to divide people. They gerrymander to get those divisions enshrined into the very fabric of how elections operate. They play people against each other, and actively work as the enemy to certain classes of people. It's not just some of them, it's the vast majority of them. It's also not strictly a problem at the national level. It is increasingly infecting state, county, and city political processes as well, in those areas it didn't already do so. The only places that don't seem to have these problems are areas that are highly homogeneous.
In countries that are already highly homogeneous, you don't see these types of problems on the scale they exist in the United States. In those areas, you don't have to be against some domestic group in order to stand a chance of being elected. In the US, it's almost universally necessary to be so.
Slashdot Mirror
He received an SMS which he believed to be from Vodaphone, stating that they were having network difficulties and he would experience loss of cell service for the next 24 hours.
They should set up an opt-in system where they simply trash any mail destined for your address which is addressed to "residential customer." (or whatever it is they actually use)
Then, they still get paid by advertisers who want to mail bulk rate advertisements but don't have the overhead of actually transporting that mail past the first sorting facility it goes to.
Assuming incompetence before malice is usually a good practice, but not necessarily when referring to Congress. They knowingly and willfully structure accounting to hide as much as they can. It would not surprise me to find out the pre-pay requirement for employee healthcare was structured solely for the purpose of helping disguise the budget deficit.
I don't mean the above to say it was meant to disguise ALL the deficit; that would be sheer stupidity to claim. But you can certainly shrink the appearance of a gaping hole with nickel-and-dime accounting. Just look at how much companies like Enron and Worldcom were able to cover up, and how long they were able to cover it up.
Latency is a bitch, but nothing compares to the bandwidth you get.
That's not really the point either. You can build on older technologies if you have the people who know how they work in the first place. All of the building blocks were there to develop better implementations, but that is no longer possible. It's being re-invented because there's absolutely no other option. Nobody can re-use any of the work that went into launching heavy rockets into space that might be applicable today. That might be a small amount of help, or a large amount. The point is, nobody knows anymore.
I didn't say anything about "reinventing." I said building more of what they have.
It costs a lot more to invent, test, and deliver something than it does to build another of something which already works. There's likely to be a lot of efficiency improvements with newer heavy lift rockets because of advances in technology. That has nothing to do with the point I made, which apparently went whizzing over your head.
It's sad there aren't more people capable of looking at things as rationally as you did in this response.
This is actually why the space program is in the state it's in. They can't build more heavy lift rockets because there is nobody left who actually knows how they were built in the first place.
Yup. Lincoln ended slavery, but in so doing also ended all but the pretense that the US was a republican union.
In the US, "professional" is frequently the label added to work that would be more appropriate if submitted by a high schooler.
I'm not awake enough yet. I read the title as "Gnome Researchers Have Too Much Data."
No, that was just renamed to roentgenium. :p
I'm pretty sure that's just a shorter restatement of the point the AC you were replying to was making. It was the AC above that who was making the distinction between the two.
This is far too simple a solution to exist in most places in the US.
The interesting thing is, some of the most backwater places I've lived have increased recycling rates simply because they did exactly what should be done: charged what it actually costs, by weight, to use a landfill based on the cost of producing a new landfill. Recyclable items were not chargeable so long as you separated them out.
For all the screaming above about libertarians, this is one that qualifies as a libertarian one: the cost is borne by those who use it, and isn't hidden or manipulated to provide preferential treatment to anyone.
All it requires in a city is a separate bin, just like recyclables. Don't do it, pay higher rates based on the weight of the organic material. If it's costing too much for landfills, it means their rates are too low. Oh wait, we can't raise rates because that would fall disproportionately on the poor as a percentage of income.
Yup. The only reason they withdrew their application is so that the report would not be published. They're pissed because their ploy didn't work.
Yeah, posted while tired and sick. Wasn't really looking for puns...
I didn't realize Gygax was as alive and well as he's ever been...
There's a big difference between a work program which makes useful things efficiently and a work program which is intentionally inefficient in order to employ as many people as they can get away with.
Superfluous in a purely technical sense, yes, but if anyone else has done it they're not sharing the fact with the rest of the world.
Someone infected with the 1918 flu strain has a significantly better chance of recovery under modern medical care than their 1918 counterpart.
Change that to "marginally better" and I might agree with you. There is still no effective treatment against a cytokine storm reaction, which is what primarily killed people in 1918. All current treatments are still experimental.
There might be marginal cases where better monitoring would have resulted in fewer deaths, but the vast majority would find no better help with current medical technology.
The population density of the California coast is 25% of Japan's density. Even if you take total land mass comparisons, it's still half the density at best.
As for route "straightness," coasts provide just as many problems as landforms do overland.
The cost of moving massive numbers of people through dense population centers over a relatively small comparative distance vs. the cost of property acquisition would be a major difference.
Multiply the population density of California by 4x, and it might then become cost-effective.
That is the most ignorant, or sleaziest (not sure which), description of how settlers dealt with natives I believe I've ever read.
Just because a people don't have borders written out on pieces of paper does not justify displacing them and shooting those who resist that displacement.
So, top of the list of priorities:
1. Re-implement slavery (or near-slavery).
2. Take all property necessary without compensation or recourse, using lethal force as necessary.
Yes, it is probably true that most US citizens see their own personal views as the "universal" truth. It's one of the few countries where discussion of politics including people who don't already generally agree with each other is usually a particularly nasty affair.
That said, there is a logical argument for seeing government as the enemy (in the US, that is). The US is one of the most heterogeneous countries in the world. There are many regions, both small and large, that do not even slightly resemble other regions culturally, socially, politically, intellectually, or almost any combination of the above.
The people who are able to raise the enormous capital necessary to become elected play on these differences to divide people. They gerrymander to get those divisions enshrined into the very fabric of how elections operate. They play people against each other, and actively work as the enemy to certain classes of people. It's not just some of them, it's the vast majority of them. It's also not strictly a problem at the national level. It is increasingly infecting state, county, and city political processes as well, in those areas it didn't already do so. The only places that don't seem to have these problems are areas that are highly homogeneous.
In countries that are already highly homogeneous, you don't see these types of problems on the scale they exist in the United States. In those areas, you don't have to be against some domestic group in order to stand a chance of being elected. In the US, it's almost universally necessary to be so.