Ok, deer are normally killed with a *bullet* - not shot. A single projectile passing into the vitals. At least half the time the bullet passes through the other side. When it doesn't the bullet is either lodged under the skin or is in the chest cavity. The meat in the general area is often discarded anyways due to ballistic shock (ie, it turns to a bloody mush).
Bottom line, contact between the deer and the bullet is brief (often fractions of a second) and localized.
My understanding is that your point underscores the exact reason that some organizations are pushing to eliminate hunting with lead.. namely, animal meat with lead in it is discarded, scavenged upon, and winds up poisoning wildlife. Its particularly troubling when its a species that's already endangered, like condors:
The closest the article comes to saying this is "that free programs are not always cheaper". Headlining it as "Open Source More Expensive Says MS" is pretty disingenuous.
That's a pretty important point... Might be worth modding parent up, and if you're Joey Hess, might be worth including in the blog post linked to in the/. article.
Well, THANKFULLY all the social network sites have a rigorous registration application and post-signup screening process, to filter out all these supposed ne'er-do-wells and ensure that only legitimate users with truthful profiles make use of that site and its services. >.>
"Though disapproved of by many, pronunciations ending in \\-kyÉ(TM)-lÉ(TM)r\\ have been found in widespread use"
I am one of those many who disapproves. Yes, a lot of people say it like that, and it sounds stupid. Just because a lot of people do it doesn't make it right.
You're not the first to note that the electoral system has serious shortcomings, but the system as it stands was designed to ensure that even least populous states had some notable level of influence and that it wasn't just the population centers who got to decide everything for everyone. In this sense, its a reasonable balance to one-man-one-vote.
1M1V systems would focus campaigns and policy-making on the population centers to the exclusion of lesser populated cities and states. Though in all honesty, I'm not sure that's substantially better or worse than the current system by which states are categorically ignored once any given candidate has a statistically significant lead, in order to solely focus on "battleground" states.
I do agree though, that this fact doesn't make it any less flabbergasting. I think the country would be much better served if all the states did their electoral voting the way Maine and Nebraska do it:
Namely, that EACH congressional district has an electoral vote that goes to the winner of the popular vote in THAT district, with the two remaining electoral votes in each state going to the winner of the overall popular vote in that state.
So there's still a benefit to gaining the popular vote in a state, but by the same token the minority vote in each states doesn't get disregarded the way it does now.
California Republicans and Texas Democrats (and many others) should be heard, too =)
It isn't that uncommon for Press Releases announcing the success of an event to be drafted before the event takes place.
Sure, fabricating the actual dialogue ahead of time is shadier than most.. but really what they're doing isn't THAT different from what we do in America every day. It's only garnering attention because it was leaked, but I can't imagine that anyone who says they're shocked by this isn't feigning that shock.
You could just as easily be just as shocked at a Presidential candidate accidentally releasing both a victory speech and a concession speech before knowing the outcome of an election. It's not really news, it's just humorous that it was posted (way) too prematurely.
Make no mistake, I like Apple as much as the next guy, and have used their machines for many many years... but It's no secret that they have substantially higher mark-ups (and hence, profit margins) on their equipment than other PC Hardware manufacturers, due in no small part to the fact that the machines are well designed and supported, and have no serious direct Macintosh competition.
(I mean sure, there are people who install MacOS illicitly, but I can't imagine they're a statistically significant percentage of the MacOS-using populace, and certainly not a serious source of "competition"... yet.)
"The very large IPv6 address space supports 2^128 (about 3.4Ã--10^38) addresses, or approximately 5Ã--10^28 (roughly 2^95) addresses for each of the roughly 6.5 billion (6.5Ã--10^9) people alive today. In a different perspective, this is 2^52 addresses for every observable star in the known universe â" more than ten billion billion billion times as many addresses as IPv4 (2^32) supported."
Each person currently on earth could have 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 addresses allocated. If you really use all of yours, I'll lend you a few of mine. (Obviously, this is a bit of hyperbole, since there are reserved address blocks in IPv6 just as in IPv4.. but the point is the same. It's a much longer term solution that you're giving it credit for.)
Each congressional district has 1 electoral vote determined by the votes of the people in that district. The two remaining electoral votes in each state go to the popular statewide vote-winner.
Other states have considered adopting this method as well.
It's a crisis to some people, but you're absolutely correct that isn't a constitutional one.
Texas will still vote, it's just that if Barr succeeds, they wouldn't have Obama or McCain listed on the ticket. Theoretically, those electoral votes will go to whomever gets the most votes on the ballot.
Where it gets interesting is that in Texas, there is nothing that COMPELS the electors to vote for anyone based on the popular vote. 29 States (Plus DC) have laws that would claim to bind electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote in that state, but the constitutionality of those laws, while untested, is a subject of debate. In any case, Texas has no such "faithless-elector" law that I can find. The electors can cast their ballot for anyone, and abstention is an option as well.
Obama wasn't going to carry Texas anyway, so it won't really affect his potential electoral votes, he still faces the same challenges to reach 270 votes. Assuming nobody hits 270, and it goes to the House to decide, Obama would win if the vote was along party lines.
McCain is in a tough spot without Texas though. If he can't appear on the ballot, and he doesn't gain any of the 34 electoral votes from Texas, he's going to be scrounging. If that happens, he'll have to win Pennsylvania just to stop Obama from having 270 (it would be 252-252, assuming all the other states vote along the lines of current polling, which is NOT a given.) to force the decision to go to the House, which he'll probably also lose.
Personally, I'd love to see Barr succeed in this one.. the major parties really do have this sense of entitlement implying that they're above the law by virtue of popularity. It's all largely academic though: It'll never happen. Barr may well be 100% correct, and even have the legal right, but they will find SOME way to get the Democratic and Republican nominees on the ballot, period. There's too much at stake and too much money behind the interests of the major parties to have it come out any other way.
270 votes is 50percent plus one, i.e., a simple majority.
If any candidate fails to obtain a simple majority of electoral votes, a ballot is performed in the House of Representatives (435 people, with each state having a certain number of representatives based on its population. It can be a bit confusing if you're unfamiliar with it, but if you're really curious, check out the US Constitution, Article 2 Section 1.
Without Texas's electoral votes, it's possible that neither candidate could reach 270 electoral votes, but the Constitution specifies that the decision goes to a ballot in the House of Representatives.
Strictly speaking, its always been possible for the decision to go to the House, since winning requires a simple majority (50% + 1 vote = 270). Since there's an even number of votes (538), you could theoretically split 269-269.
At any rate, the point is that while it would be wildly out of the ordinary, it's not a constitutional crisis since article 2 section 1 accounts for it.
Sure AIG might insure them, but the problem is that they insured without the capital reserve in place to back the insurance. They insured risky loans without the money to fulfill their finanical obligations should those loans fall through.
"If AIG goes under, its backing becomes worthless"
And one might argue that their backing was worthless from the start, just nobody knew it until the shit began to hit the fan. What's the point of having insurance if the insurer can't cover the claims?
Don't get me wrong, I agree with your assessment of the disaster that would take place should AIG go under.. But lets make no mistake, they dug their own grave here. They didn't start the chain of events that led to this collapse, but neither are they the innocent victims that some people claim them to be.
That site says I'm in East Rutherford, New Jersey when I'm actually in Los Angeles. If that's the extent of the accuracy of the technology, I'm not sure we have as much to worry about as you imply.
Probably not as big a deal when there's not a thick atmosphere to block incoming sunlight. On Earth, when the sun is on the horizon, the light has to pass through lots of atmosphere compared to when the sun is overhead.
Sure, you still want the panel directly facing the sun, but it's not exactly the same problem as high latitudes on Earth I would think, since the negligible moon atmosphere would mean more energy reaches the surface, even near the poles. I don't think it necessarily needs to be tall, it just needs to be facing the right direction.
"Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?
The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!
We're going away. Pack your shit, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet'll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance."
For what it's worth, this is analogous to a well known psychological effect known as state-dependent recall.
The effect specifically refers to the improved retrieval from long term memory experienced when the memory retrieval takes place in the same mind-state (in this example, of drug influence) that the memory was deposited in....
But my own experience of gaming while stoned will attest to a very similar (and strikingly simple) revelation, not strictly limited to memory retrieval: When you learn to play a game stoned, you play that game better while stoned.
Rather, the data parsed from the spreadsheets is preserved in the cache, but only in HTML. The XLS file itself (including any raw text or edit history captured by the file format) is not cached.
Eh, probably more because it's incurable than because of its perceived virulence.
There are tons of curable viruses that people don't go out of their way to avoid, simply because if you get sick from them, you'll get better eventually.
The ones that don't go away are the ones people go to great lengths to avoid.. and even then many people still have the "Well, it won't happen to me" mentality.
Besides which, as was mentioned above, HIV doesn't kill you.. It works on your immune system to make it easier for other stuff to kill you.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, deer are normally killed with a *bullet* - not shot. A single projectile passing into the vitals. At least half the time the bullet passes through the other side. When it doesn't the bullet is either lodged under the skin or is in the chest cavity. The meat in the general area is often discarded anyways due to ballistic shock (ie, it turns to a bloody mush).
Bottom line, contact between the deer and the bullet is brief (often fractions of a second) and localized.
My understanding is that your point underscores the exact reason that some organizations are pushing to eliminate hunting with lead.. namely, animal meat with lead in it is discarded, scavenged upon, and winds up poisoning wildlife. Its particularly troubling when its a species that's already endangered, like condors:
http://www.ventanaws.org/species_condors_lead/
The closest the article comes to saying this is "that free programs are not always cheaper". Headlining it as "Open Source More Expensive Says MS" is pretty disingenuous.
That's a pretty important point... Might be worth modding parent up, and if you're Joey Hess, might be worth including in the blog post linked to in the /. article.
Well, THANKFULLY all the social network sites have a rigorous registration application and post-signup screening process, to filter out all these supposed ne'er-do-wells and ensure that only legitimate users with truthful profiles make use of that site and its services. >.>
From the page you linked:
"Though disapproved of by many, pronunciations ending in \\-kyÉ(TM)-lÉ(TM)r\\ have been found in widespread use"
I am one of those many who disapproves. Yes, a lot of people say it like that, and it sounds stupid. Just because a lot of people do it doesn't make it right.
You're not the first to note that the electoral system has serious shortcomings, but the system as it stands was designed to ensure that even least populous states had some notable level of influence and that it wasn't just the population centers who got to decide everything for everyone. In this sense, its a reasonable balance to one-man-one-vote.
1M1V systems would focus campaigns and policy-making on the population centers to the exclusion of lesser populated cities and states. Though in all honesty, I'm not sure that's substantially better or worse than the current system by which states are categorically ignored once any given candidate has a statistically significant lead, in order to solely focus on "battleground" states.
I do agree though, that this fact doesn't make it any less flabbergasting. I think the country would be much better served if all the states did their electoral voting the way Maine and Nebraska do it:
Namely, that EACH congressional district has an electoral vote that goes to the winner of the popular vote in THAT district, with the two remaining electoral votes in each state going to the winner of the overall popular vote in that state.
So there's still a benefit to gaining the popular vote in a state, but by the same token the minority vote in each states doesn't get disregarded the way it does now.
California Republicans and Texas Democrats (and many others) should be heard, too =)
I know that he says nuke-you-lar instead of nuke-lee-ar. Do you need a reason beyond that?
Yeah, I think the fireworks thing was a non-issue and probably shouldn't even have been mentioned.
There are plenty of legitimate things that China can be criticized for, and of those things, this one is pretty weak.
It isn't that uncommon for Press Releases announcing the success of an event to be drafted before the event takes place.
Sure, fabricating the actual dialogue ahead of time is shadier than most.. but really what they're doing isn't THAT different from what we do in America every day. It's only garnering attention because it was leaked, but I can't imagine that anyone who says they're shocked by this isn't feigning that shock.
You could just as easily be just as shocked at a Presidential candidate accidentally releasing both a victory speech and a concession speech before knowing the outcome of an election. It's not really news, it's just humorous that it was posted (way) too prematurely.
How many people are honestly surprised at this?
Sure there is.
Make no mistake, I like Apple as much as the next guy, and have used their machines for many many years... but It's no secret that they have substantially higher mark-ups (and hence, profit margins) on their equipment than other PC Hardware manufacturers, due in no small part to the fact that the machines are well designed and supported, and have no serious direct Macintosh competition.
(I mean sure, there are people who install MacOS illicitly, but I can't imagine they're a statistically significant percentage of the MacOS-using populace, and certainly not a serious source of "competition"... yet.)
Think about some of these numbers..
"The very large IPv6 address space supports 2^128 (about 3.4Ã--10^38) addresses, or approximately 5Ã--10^28 (roughly 2^95) addresses for each of the roughly 6.5 billion (6.5Ã--10^9) people alive today. In a different perspective, this is 2^52 addresses for every observable star in the known universe â" more than ten billion billion billion times as many addresses as IPv4 (2^32) supported."
Each person currently on earth could have 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 addresses allocated. If you really use all of yours, I'll lend you a few of mine. (Obviously, this is a bit of hyperbole, since there are reserved address blocks in IPv6 just as in IPv4.. but the point is the same. It's a much longer term solution that you're giving it credit for.)
(From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipv6)
Maine and Nebraska already do this.
Each congressional district has 1 electoral vote determined by the votes of the people in that district. The two remaining electoral votes in each state go to the popular statewide vote-winner.
Other states have considered adopting this method as well.
It's a crisis to some people, but you're absolutely correct that isn't a constitutional one.
Texas will still vote, it's just that if Barr succeeds, they wouldn't have Obama or McCain listed on the ticket. Theoretically, those electoral votes will go to whomever gets the most votes on the ballot.
Where it gets interesting is that in Texas, there is nothing that COMPELS the electors to vote for anyone based on the popular vote. 29 States (Plus DC) have laws that would claim to bind electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote in that state, but the constitutionality of those laws, while untested, is a subject of debate. In any case, Texas has no such "faithless-elector" law that I can find. The electors can cast their ballot for anyone, and abstention is an option as well.
Obama wasn't going to carry Texas anyway, so it won't really affect his potential electoral votes, he still faces the same challenges to reach 270 votes. Assuming nobody hits 270, and it goes to the House to decide, Obama would win if the vote was along party lines.
McCain is in a tough spot without Texas though. If he can't appear on the ballot, and he doesn't gain any of the 34 electoral votes from Texas, he's going to be scrounging. If that happens, he'll have to win Pennsylvania just to stop Obama from having 270 (it would be 252-252, assuming all the other states vote along the lines of current polling, which is NOT a given.) to force the decision to go to the House, which he'll probably also lose.
Personally, I'd love to see Barr succeed in this one.. the major parties really do have this sense of entitlement implying that they're above the law by virtue of popularity.
It's all largely academic though: It'll never happen. Barr may well be 100% correct, and even have the legal right, but they will find SOME way to get the Democratic and Republican nominees on the ballot, period. There's too much at stake and too much money behind the interests of the major parties to have it come out any other way.
270 votes is 50percent plus one, i.e., a simple majority.
If any candidate fails to obtain a simple majority of electoral votes, a ballot is performed in the House of Representatives (435 people, with each state having a certain number of representatives based on its population. It can be a bit confusing if you're unfamiliar with it, but if you're really curious, check out the US Constitution, Article 2 Section 1.
Without Texas's electoral votes, it's possible that neither candidate could reach 270 electoral votes, but the Constitution specifies that the decision goes to a ballot in the House of Representatives.
Strictly speaking, its always been possible for the decision to go to the House, since winning requires a simple majority (50% + 1 vote = 270). Since there's an even number of votes (538), you could theoretically split 269-269.
At any rate, the point is that while it would be wildly out of the ordinary, it's not a constitutional crisis since article 2 section 1 accounts for it.
Sure AIG might insure them, but the problem is that they insured without the capital reserve in place to back the insurance. They insured risky loans without the money to fulfill their finanical obligations should those loans fall through.
"If AIG goes under, its backing becomes worthless"
And one might argue that their backing was worthless from the start, just nobody knew it until the shit began to hit the fan. What's the point of having insurance if the insurer can't cover the claims?
Don't get me wrong, I agree with your assessment of the disaster that would take place should AIG go under.. But lets make no mistake, they dug their own grave here. They didn't start the chain of events that led to this collapse, but neither are they the innocent victims that some people claim them to be.
That site says I'm in East Rutherford, New Jersey when I'm actually in Los Angeles. If that's the extent of the accuracy of the technology, I'm not sure we have as much to worry about as you imply.
How many MILLION MSCEs do we have in the world now?
MSCE?
Masters of Science in Civil Engineering? I reckon there's quite a few, but I don't think that's what you meant. ;)
Probably not as big a deal when there's not a thick atmosphere to block incoming sunlight. On Earth, when the sun is on the horizon, the light has to pass through lots of atmosphere compared to when the sun is overhead.
Sure, you still want the panel directly facing the sun, but it's not exactly the same problem as high latitudes on Earth I would think, since the negligible moon atmosphere would mean more energy reaches the surface, even near the poles. I don't think it necessarily needs to be tall, it just needs to be facing the right direction.
"Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?
The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!
We're going away. Pack your shit, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet'll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance."
For what it's worth, this is analogous to a well known psychological effect known as state-dependent recall.
The effect specifically refers to the improved retrieval from long term memory experienced when the memory retrieval takes place in the same mind-state (in this example, of drug influence) that the memory was deposited in....
But my own experience of gaming while stoned will attest to a very similar (and strikingly simple) revelation, not strictly limited to memory retrieval: When you learn to play a game stoned, you play that game better while stoned.
Chop, Chop, Dig, Dig, Chop, Chop, Dig, Dig...
I hear digging, but I don't hear chopping!
That's correct.
Rather, the data parsed from the spreadsheets is preserved in the cache, but only in HTML. The XLS file itself (including any raw text or edit history captured by the file format) is not cached.
Because it kills.
Eh, probably more because it's incurable than because of its perceived virulence.
There are tons of curable viruses that people don't go out of their way to avoid, simply because if you get sick from them, you'll get better eventually.
The ones that don't go away are the ones people go to great lengths to avoid.. and even then many people still have the "Well, it won't happen to me" mentality.
Besides which, as was mentioned above, HIV doesn't kill you.. It works on your immune system
to make it easier for other stuff to kill you.
That's just bad form.
Welcome to Hollywood, baby.