If you take the assertion that the Universe is a simulation seriously, then rocks ARE designed objects, even though there is absolutely nothing about rocks to suggest that they actually are designed.
In No Man's Sky, the rocks aren't "designed", they are "generated". Whether they were generated by a simulation or "nature" is not something we can challenge while we are inside the simulation. In Oblivion/Skyrim/Fallout, the rocks are "designed".
I agree it doesn't indicate we are in a simulation, but "not-designed" doesn't lead to "not-simulated".
When you get back and find your bitcoins stolen, you'll be able to identify the wallet they end up in. Congradulations. But what good does that do when the protocol doesn't allow for a mass audit? Oh yeah, you have no understanding of how this works.
If every bank involved agrees the invalid signature is valid, what happens to the money? Now apply that to bitcoin.
You bought into the lie that it's "secure" so completely, that you can't conceive of a situation when it's not. There are plenty, some are obvious, others, less so.
The situation I describe is almost exactly what you described. The swarm is supposed to have some people processing transactions. They confirm the keys. If enough people confirm the fraudulent signature as valid, the transaction takes place, both in bitcoin, and at your bank. You seem to understand the attack 100% and refuse to accept it's possible. It's been proven possible, and is at the point now where it's quite practical. The "fault" is that if someone were to steal 100% of all bitcoins, nobody would ever use another bitcoin. So you'd just destroy bitcoin, not gain anything. Stealing a coin here or there from a wallet that hasn't been touched in a while would be more "practical", and for all we know, is being done now. Bitcoins are finite and identifiable. It'd be possible to find every bitcoin not traded in the past 3 years, assert it "lost" then the attacker fraudulently claim them with the attack given, and it's possible he could liquidate after the theft without anyone noticing until he's cashed out.
What income? He had x bitcoin 5 years ago, he has x bitcoin today. No bitcoins incoming, there was no income.
He had $10 5 years ago. He bought something. He sold it for $100. That's $90 in income. Pretending math doesn't work because you hate government-mandated inflation just makes you look like an idiot.
Go understand bitcoin, then re-ask the question. If you knew the basics, understanding the attack would be trivial. That you have to ask indicates you wouldn't understand the answer.
It's a deflationary system. People will lose wallets (die without clear instructions and such for others to use them, and the like).
And it's hijackable by a single person. When a single person has control of the blockchain long enough, which happens as people drop out of the mining business, a single entity could transfer all coins to themselves, then process the transactions, until they "own" them all. It will happen, and when it does, people will lose faith in all block chain systems, even those without the same limitations.
The US Federal Reserve is a privately owned institution.
The non-profit Fed is "owned" by nobody. The leaders of the Fed are confirmed appointees of the US Federal Government. It is a "government institution" by all measures.
He's over 60, so maybe the schools he went to didn't cover it. It seems to be a more recent push to have globes in classrooms. The cheap Chinese globes we had were all made in the late 70s, and not replaced in the 80s/90s when the fall of the USSR and Berlin Wall changed maps. Not that you could find Yugoslavia on a small classroom globe anyway...
In the '70s, we covered projections. But when he went through school in the '50s and '60s, they may not have been covering that yet. In the '90s, the schools near me were tearing out all Mercator for this reason, they just didn't put up a PR release about it.
The registers, physical and online, record both. This is important because someone could get accused of a crime when it was a crime, before the law changed. So the history must be preserved for the law to work.
Laws use formatting to indicate structure. When I was trying to find the original law, I ended up at 3 different articles that formatted it as I did. It's quite common to have a numbered list separated.
If the formatting was irrelevant, why did you abandon the formatting to push your interpretation?
To me, the latter is clearly incorrect.
Then you don't even understand the question. "Incorrect English" isn't a valid argument, unless one is trying to strike down the law, which neither party was trying to do in this case. Is it unambiguously parseable? Yes, the second is more unambiguously parseable than the first (without the Oxford comma you added in, which was irrelevant to the issue at hand).
That you are unwilling to check sources proves you wrong. The real reason Republicans are against any aid for mental illness. If everyone were cured, they'd have no voters left.
We'd be missing an "and" or "or" to denote the final item, so you'd actually need more elements
So:
"The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment of: (1) Agricultural produce; (2) Meat and fish products; and (3) Perishable foods.
Is invalid, according to you? I eliminated the conjugation, and it looks to make sense, other than it's a dependent clause, as it was before, and without context.
Why is distribution not distributing? That's the only word in your list that's not a gerund. That inconsistency either means the truckers win because the exception is poorly written and should be struck down until re-written, or that the intention is on the trucker's side. Either way, the win is with the truckers. Given the wording, I go with: "The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing [[for shipment or distribution]] of: (1) Agricultural produce; (2) Meat and fish products; and (3) Perishable foods"
They wanted to specify packing, to exclude packing for sale, but not packing for movement. But "distribution" and "shipment" are legally exclusive terms, so both must be included for the type of packing intended.
" canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing" Are all gerunds. All the same part of speech, and conjugation. They seem to constitute 100% of the list. The question seems to simplify down to what is the prepositional phrase.
The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing [for shipment or distribution] of: (1) Agricultural produce; (2) Meat and fish products; and (3) Perishable foods The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing [for shipment] or distribution of: (1) Agricultural produce; (2) Meat and fish products; and (3) Perishable foods
Based on word tense, the first seems more correct.
The Oxford comma is irrelevant. There are an infinite number of ways to write that law to be unambiguously interpreted without the use of an Oxford comma. Yes, if the Oxford comma were standard, there'd be fewer ways to make it ambiguous, but that's not the point you asserted. "You can't make that distinction [] without the Oxford comma []." Which is 100% false, and provably so read any of the piles of comments elsewhere on this article that demonstrate how, for a small selection of options).
Diff doesn't work. Sometimes a new law is explicitly a diff. "Repeal The Idiot Act of 1822 and add "new text" in the place in the criminal code, 4.2 (1)A(2)(c). The law is a diff. Other times it's "define green in this section to include all blue and yellow that isn't pure, and any reds that can be confused with green to anyone with colorblindness." The words are new (a simple diff), but can modify lots of things in that section, making a "legal diff" difficult.
Because the Conservative old people refused to index the retirement age to longevity, and tax rate to payout rate. If those had been indexed at the time of creation, it would never have been a problem. But the conservative voting block of AARP is "bribed" for votes with inapporpriately large SS payments for the amount paid in. And the Conservatives refuse to lift the income cap on SS taxes, making it explicitly regressive and causing funding issues. Lifting the SS tax cap would fund it, with no burden to the lower 90% of wage earners.
Comparing a 16 year old to a 25+, yes. Comparing a 40 year old worker to a 60 year old worker, no. Those benefits you list are purely imaginary, and you should stop your illegal age discrimination.
With DNSSEC, the redirection would fail. That's the point of DNSSEC, to get around some of the questionable (blatantly illegal, but unpunished) activities by ISPs.
Slashdot Mirror
If you take the assertion that the Universe is a simulation seriously, then rocks ARE designed objects, even though there is absolutely nothing about rocks to suggest that they actually are designed.
In No Man's Sky, the rocks aren't "designed", they are "generated". Whether they were generated by a simulation or "nature" is not something we can challenge while we are inside the simulation. In Oblivion/Skyrim/Fallout, the rocks are "designed".
I agree it doesn't indicate we are in a simulation, but "not-designed" doesn't lead to "not-simulated".
Your quantum salad is intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Anyone can audit the blockchain, not just miners.
When you get back and find your bitcoins stolen, you'll be able to identify the wallet they end up in. Congradulations. But what good does that do when the protocol doesn't allow for a mass audit? Oh yeah, you have no understanding of how this works.
If every bank involved agrees the invalid signature is valid, what happens to the money? Now apply that to bitcoin.
You bought into the lie that it's "secure" so completely, that you can't conceive of a situation when it's not. There are plenty, some are obvious, others, less so.
The situation I describe is almost exactly what you described. The swarm is supposed to have some people processing transactions. They confirm the keys. If enough people confirm the fraudulent signature as valid, the transaction takes place, both in bitcoin, and at your bank. You seem to understand the attack 100% and refuse to accept it's possible. It's been proven possible, and is at the point now where it's quite practical. The "fault" is that if someone were to steal 100% of all bitcoins, nobody would ever use another bitcoin. So you'd just destroy bitcoin, not gain anything. Stealing a coin here or there from a wallet that hasn't been touched in a while would be more "practical", and for all we know, is being done now. Bitcoins are finite and identifiable. It'd be possible to find every bitcoin not traded in the past 3 years, assert it "lost" then the attacker fraudulently claim them with the attack given, and it's possible he could liquidate after the theft without anyone noticing until he's cashed out.
What income? He had x bitcoin 5 years ago, he has x bitcoin today. No bitcoins incoming, there was no income.
He had $10 5 years ago. He bought something. He sold it for $100. That's $90 in income. Pretending math doesn't work because you hate government-mandated inflation just makes you look like an idiot.
Go understand bitcoin, then re-ask the question. If you knew the basics, understanding the attack would be trivial. That you have to ask indicates you wouldn't understand the answer.
It's a deflationary system. People will lose wallets (die without clear instructions and such for others to use them, and the like).
And it's hijackable by a single person. When a single person has control of the blockchain long enough, which happens as people drop out of the mining business, a single entity could transfer all coins to themselves, then process the transactions, until they "own" them all. It will happen, and when it does, people will lose faith in all block chain systems, even those without the same limitations.
The US Federal Reserve is a privately owned institution.
The non-profit Fed is "owned" by nobody. The leaders of the Fed are confirmed appointees of the US Federal Government. It is a "government institution" by all measures.
He's over 60, so maybe the schools he went to didn't cover it. It seems to be a more recent push to have globes in classrooms. The cheap Chinese globes we had were all made in the late 70s, and not replaced in the 80s/90s when the fall of the USSR and Berlin Wall changed maps. Not that you could find Yugoslavia on a small classroom globe anyway...
In the '70s, we covered projections. But when he went through school in the '50s and '60s, they may not have been covering that yet. In the '90s, the schools near me were tearing out all Mercator for this reason, they just didn't put up a PR release about it.
The registers, physical and online, record both. This is important because someone could get accused of a crime when it was a crime, before the law changed. So the history must be preserved for the law to work.
I thought you were asking about the grammatical validity of the example you provided,
Once it's in the courts, the question is about legal validity. At that point, the "best English" is irrelevant, and only the meaning is of interest.
If the formatting was irrelevant, why did you abandon the formatting to push your interpretation?
To me, the latter is clearly incorrect.
Then you don't even understand the question. "Incorrect English" isn't a valid argument, unless one is trying to strike down the law, which neither party was trying to do in this case. Is it unambiguously parseable? Yes, the second is more unambiguously parseable than the first (without the Oxford comma you added in, which was irrelevant to the issue at hand).
That you are unwilling to check sources proves you wrong. The real reason Republicans are against any aid for mental illness. If everyone were cured, they'd have no voters left.
We'd be missing an "and" or "or" to denote the final item, so you'd actually need more elements
So:
"The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment of:
(1) Agricultural produce;
(2) Meat and fish products; and
(3) Perishable foods.
Is invalid, according to you? I eliminated the conjugation, and it looks to make sense, other than it's a dependent clause, as it was before, and without context.
Why is distribution not distributing? That's the only word in your list that's not a gerund. That inconsistency either means the truckers win because the exception is poorly written and should be struck down until re-written, or that the intention is on the trucker's side. Either way, the win is with the truckers. Given the wording, I go with :
"The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing [[for shipment or distribution]] of: (1) Agricultural produce; (2) Meat and fish products; and (3) Perishable foods"
They wanted to specify packing, to exclude packing for sale, but not packing for movement. But "distribution" and "shipment" are legally exclusive terms, so both must be included for the type of packing intended.
" canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing" Are all gerunds. All the same part of speech, and conjugation. They seem to constitute 100% of the list. The question seems to simplify down to what is the prepositional phrase.
The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing [for shipment or distribution] of: (1) Agricultural produce; (2) Meat and fish products; and (3) Perishable foods
The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing [for shipment] or distribution of: (1) Agricultural produce; (2) Meat and fish products; and (3) Perishable foods
Based on word tense, the first seems more correct.
The NYT gave their sources. Did you try there?
The Oxford comma is irrelevant. There are an infinite number of ways to write that law to be unambiguously interpreted without the use of an Oxford comma. Yes, if the Oxford comma were standard, there'd be fewer ways to make it ambiguous, but that's not the point you asserted. "You can't make that distinction [] without the Oxford comma []." Which is 100% false, and provably so read any of the piles of comments elsewhere on this article that demonstrate how, for a small selection of options).
If your parents are Ayn Rand and God, where's the issue? You'd have used both Oxford comma, and non-Oxford comma rules at the same time.
Diff doesn't work. Sometimes a new law is explicitly a diff. "Repeal The Idiot Act of 1822 and add "new text" in the place in the criminal code, 4.2 (1)A(2)(c). The law is a diff. Other times it's "define green in this section to include all blue and yellow that isn't pure, and any reds that can be confused with green to anyone with colorblindness." The words are new (a simple diff), but can modify lots of things in that section, making a "legal diff" difficult.
Because the Conservative old people refused to index the retirement age to longevity, and tax rate to payout rate. If those had been indexed at the time of creation, it would never have been a problem. But the conservative voting block of AARP is "bribed" for votes with inapporpriately large SS payments for the amount paid in. And the Conservatives refuse to lift the income cap on SS taxes, making it explicitly regressive and causing funding issues. Lifting the SS tax cap would fund it, with no burden to the lower 90% of wage earners.
Comparing a 16 year old to a 25+, yes. Comparing a 40 year old worker to a 60 year old worker, no. Those benefits you list are purely imaginary, and you should stop your illegal age discrimination.
With DNSSEC, the redirection would fail. That's the point of DNSSEC, to get around some of the questionable (blatantly illegal, but unpunished) activities by ISPs.
What does Ontario and NY have to do with Queensland? Looks like the one here pushing an agenda is you.
Leaf is cheaper and more efficient.