Genetic diversity is irrelevant. Genetic diversity is desirable in the wild because climate change or human encroachment could stress the population, and more diversity would increase the probability that some members possess a trait that is favorable to the new circumstances. Humans don't live in the wild. Light-skinned people can survive in equatorial climes because we have invented "sun screen". We wouldn't need genetic diversity to adapt to a foreign clime, but would be able to adapt ourselves through technology. There isn't a clear minimum for preventing undesirable mutations from being concentrated. But that's the only genetic restriction (you wouldn't send one man and one woman, but 50 of each is a broader selection, so long as the group doesn't include families.
The issues you mention about "skills" are unrelated to genetic diversity. As is the mention of needing surplus population for deaths.
When the interest on the debt is approaching 50% of the non-defense budget funded from income tax (excluding SS, funded through separate taxes), then I think it is a problem. At some point, it'll be impossible to fund the debt service. Is that the point at which it woul dmatter?
We started with mainframes (cloud). Then went to PCs (local), then PCs with Citrix (cloud), then PIII+ PCs (more powerful than servers at the time), now we are headed to virtualizations and cloud. It'll swing the other way later. We've done cloud before. That we called in "mainframe" once before, and "thin client" later doesn't change the fact that cloud computing is very very old.
And yet, every time a company is prosecuted for something decided by committee (like failing minivan latches from Chrysler, Pinto, or any of the other automotive "prosecutions"), never is the engineer on the floor, or other "actual" decision maker prosecuted. Sometimes they list a director or executive, depending on how much of a statement they wish to make, but it takes something like Enron to prosecute an employee, and even then Ken Lay was acquitted (vacated, with the same legal standing as an acquittal).
Blackberry sells the only device "owned" by the corporation. Secure end to end encryption, owned by the owner, not a cloud provider. It's a walled garden where the owner of the device owns the walls and the garden. It's security-focused enterprise/government that keeps it going. If you aren't one of them, there's no reason to consider it. I know a few home users that have them. The last one had to use an android phone for 2 weeks. He never turned his Blackberry on again.
A consensus from a group of people might reflect none of the decisions that would be made by the individuals alone. The decision is made by the corporation. It doesn't have to be made by a single human. In fact, in many liability cases, the corporation siccessfully argues that. Many individuals contributed to a corporate decision, but no human actually made the final decision in an actioable manner.
I never supported any removal of any rights. I just point out your string of lies. That is all. An apparently it pisses you off. Quit lying and people will stop calling you a liar.
No, corporations make decisions. People "representing" a corporation make decision, but not for themselves, and not necessarily the decision they would make if it were their choice to make.
When I was in college, I saved money renting a closet for a bedroom (not sure what a legal definition of "bedroom" is, but the room was large enough for a bed, and contained no closet, and no windows). With no windows, and on a college student's schedule, I dropped into a routine well beyond 24 hours, and it screwed with my mind something fierce.
I think it'd be interesting to have people cut off from all sense of time and see where the natural rhythms lay.
English speakers need a no because the question askers are too direct. If you'd asked for a ticket on the next flight, or a flight at 6:10 p.m. on the 23rd, then she'd have had some options for a positive response for her "no".
She keeps talking to me about something Google calls "China powder", which I found out actually refers to pollen (allergy season).
Flower powder is a literal translation of it, but google seems to understand pollen just fine, unless she's using a non-standard word. Not sure how Google could come up with "china powder" from a two-character word. If "powder" was the second word, then what could the first character be? Zhong for china? That means middle, not China.
It's the classic "why do the Japanese say 'yes' when the mean 'no'?" Of course they don't really, but beginners and machines doing translations are unable to cope with the way they ask and answer questions because it's more than just language, it's culture.
Yes, that's the real issue. Just like there's no word for "no" in Chinese. They have a word for "not" but not a word for "no", so literally, "no" in Chinese is translated as "not do" and more figuratively as "can not", but is better translated as "no" though "no" in Chinese is rude. "I would, but I can't" is how one would commonly say "no" when in American English, one would simply say "no".
You have to understand the culture to understand the language. That's why in high school, most of the language classes spend as much time on the culture as the language (at least in my school, that's how it worked).
The idea was that a universal translator is 100% correct with literal translations, and nuance around them, while 100% incapable of understanding an idiom. A universal translator (learning, and such as shown in the show) would require strong AI. The idea that it's smarter than a human at translating but dumber than a human at translating, at the same time, is a bit silly.
UTC is not on the human clock either. The human clock isn't 24 hours, but instead, uses the sun as a cue for constant and daily resets. So any 24 our clock is wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Genetic diversity is irrelevant. Genetic diversity is desirable in the wild because climate change or human encroachment could stress the population, and more diversity would increase the probability that some members possess a trait that is favorable to the new circumstances. Humans don't live in the wild. Light-skinned people can survive in equatorial climes because we have invented "sun screen". We wouldn't need genetic diversity to adapt to a foreign clime, but would be able to adapt ourselves through technology. There isn't a clear minimum for preventing undesirable mutations from being concentrated. But that's the only genetic restriction (you wouldn't send one man and one woman, but 50 of each is a broader selection, so long as the group doesn't include families.
The issues you mention about "skills" are unrelated to genetic diversity. As is the mention of needing surplus population for deaths.
ll the VCRs that support NTP are mining Bitcoins.
Wi-Fi means devices connected to the internet for free.
So my WiFi on my home router isn't WiFi because I pay for my own Internet connection? I think the A/C got confused.
When the interest on the debt is approaching 50% of the non-defense budget funded from income tax (excluding SS, funded through separate taxes), then I think it is a problem. At some point, it'll be impossible to fund the debt service. Is that the point at which it woul dmatter?
Yes. I might have been trolling a little. The people who measure their self worth on their possessions deserve it.
We started with mainframes (cloud). Then went to PCs (local), then PCs with Citrix (cloud), then PIII+ PCs (more powerful than servers at the time), now we are headed to virtualizations and cloud. It'll swing the other way later. We've done cloud before. That we called in "mainframe" once before, and "thin client" later doesn't change the fact that cloud computing is very very old.
You missed the woosh.
BRZ vs WRX has a number of people picking the BRZ. And everyone knows the WRX is much better than the Evo.
What right did that advocate removing, and from whom? Oh yeah, more lies.
And yet, every time a company is prosecuted for something decided by committee (like failing minivan latches from Chrysler, Pinto, or any of the other automotive "prosecutions"), never is the engineer on the floor, or other "actual" decision maker prosecuted. Sometimes they list a director or executive, depending on how much of a statement they wish to make, but it takes something like Enron to prosecute an employee, and even then Ken Lay was acquitted (vacated, with the same legal standing as an acquittal).
The courts disagree with you, especially when the "corporate veil" protects employees, not just investors.
Blackberry sells the only device "owned" by the corporation. Secure end to end encryption, owned by the owner, not a cloud provider. It's a walled garden where the owner of the device owns the walls and the garden. It's security-focused enterprise/government that keeps it going. If you aren't one of them, there's no reason to consider it. I know a few home users that have them. The last one had to use an android phone for 2 weeks. He never turned his Blackberry on again.
A consensus from a group of people might reflect none of the decisions that would be made by the individuals alone. The decision is made by the corporation. It doesn't have to be made by a single human. In fact, in many liability cases, the corporation siccessfully argues that. Many individuals contributed to a corporate decision, but no human actually made the final decision in an actioable manner.
I never supported any removal of any rights. I just point out your string of lies. That is all. An apparently it pisses you off. Quit lying and people will stop calling you a liar.
No, corporations make decisions. People "representing" a corporation make decision, but not for themselves, and not necessarily the decision they would make if it were their choice to make.
25 (tons of peanut butter) *(2000*16) (convert tons to ounces = 800,000 ounces
With 950,000 jars, that does look to be less than 1 oz per jar.
Someone rounded something somewhere.
and that's what the bulldozer is for.
Sounds like someone trying to justify piracy. Why are you trying to pirate peanut butter?
Also, the claim of abuse at YFZ was proven false, but they took their property and split up the families anyway.
So, they got treated better than suspected drug dealers, and you claim it's a specific anti-polygamy issue.
You seem to be unable to accept reality.
You are claiming that Texas is the federal governemnt because it fits your personal instanity. Seems you are the one with reality issues.
Yup, raided for child abuse by a "witness" who claimed to also be a victim. Like I said, name once where there wasn't an additional crime. You can't.
BTW, your claim was that the US Governemnt seized things. In your link, the state of Texas seized some things, but the US Governemtn seized nothing.
You've failed to present a single case supporting your assertions. Despite so man posts claiming you have. Why are you so confused?
When I was in college, I saved money renting a closet for a bedroom (not sure what a legal definition of "bedroom" is, but the room was large enough for a bed, and contained no closet, and no windows). With no windows, and on a college student's schedule, I dropped into a routine well beyond 24 hours, and it screwed with my mind something fierce.
I think it'd be interesting to have people cut off from all sense of time and see where the natural rhythms lay.
I'm not sure it could be harder than the initial conversion of phonemes to distinct words with their meanings.
I concur. They handle idioms, which is the same thing. A longer set of phenomes with a different meaning than any one subset alone.
English speakers need a no because the question askers are too direct. If you'd asked for a ticket on the next flight, or a flight at 6:10 p.m. on the 23rd, then she'd have had some options for a positive response for her "no".
She keeps talking to me about something Google calls "China powder", which I found out actually refers to pollen (allergy season).
Flower powder is a literal translation of it, but google seems to understand pollen just fine, unless she's using a non-standard word. Not sure how Google could come up with "china powder" from a two-character word. If "powder" was the second word, then what could the first character be? Zhong for china? That means middle, not China.
It's the classic "why do the Japanese say 'yes' when the mean 'no'?" Of course they don't really, but beginners and machines doing translations are unable to cope with the way they ask and answer questions because it's more than just language, it's culture.
Yes, that's the real issue. Just like there's no word for "no" in Chinese. They have a word for "not" but not a word for "no", so literally, "no" in Chinese is translated as "not do" and more figuratively as "can not", but is better translated as "no" though "no" in Chinese is rude. "I would, but I can't" is how one would commonly say "no" when in American English, one would simply say "no".
You have to understand the culture to understand the language. That's why in high school, most of the language classes spend as much time on the culture as the language (at least in my school, that's how it worked).
The idea was that a universal translator is 100% correct with literal translations, and nuance around them, while 100% incapable of understanding an idiom. A universal translator (learning, and such as shown in the show) would require strong AI. The idea that it's smarter than a human at translating but dumber than a human at translating, at the same time, is a bit silly.
UTC is not on the human clock either. The human clock isn't 24 hours, but instead, uses the sun as a cue for constant and daily resets. So any 24 our clock is wrong.