He never claimed to pay 60% of his total earnings.
Actually he did. He said he was paying 60% tax. Go up the thread a little. If by "60%" he meant "on some of my income, but not all", then he was using the wrong words.
I had read it when I wrote my comment.
I repeat: He never claimed to pay 60% of his total earnings.
The "of his total earnings" is purely guesswork by you.
He pays 60% of the earnings which are relevant for what was discussed. Everybody who understands the problem being discussed can clearly see that, and there no point in spelling it out.
Clearly, once you hit that income of $59001, you will not be charged 60% in taxes. Your effective tax rate will slowly increase as you earn more and more money, but unless there's another, higher tax rate over 60% you will (by definition) never be taxed at 60%.
Please, this is simple stuff. I don't know how you can fail to understand it.
Once he hits that income of $59001, he will be charged 60% in taxes of of every earning beyond those $59001. He never claimed to pay 60% of his total earnings.
The tax of the last earning is what you need to consider, when you have to decide between these two alternatives: 1. Work one extra day for money and then use the money to hire help for work at your household. 2. Do the work at your household yourself.
In some countries centuries are actually labelled in that fashion.
I live in one of the three countries mentioned in your Wikepedia link. We use the same sequence numbering of centuries as the rest of the world: the 19th century, the 20th century, etc.
If this is what is meant with "ordinal numbering" in the Wikepedia article, then this part of the article is wrong: "In Swedish, Danish and Finnish centuries are typically not named ordinally".
But we ALSO have another informal way of saying it as described in the link, just as the English speaking do.
Well, as a native from one of the countries in that link - our way sometimes bleeds through when doing on-the-top-of-your-head translations. In Sweden the correct description of the years 1900-1999 is "nittonhundratalet" - literally translated as "the nineteenth century".
I know enough Swedish to know that this is a very bad translation.
The word "nittonhundratalet" is better translated into "the nineteen hundred age". Note that this says nothing about nittonhundratalet's position in a sequence of centuries in the same way as "the nineteenth century" does.
He also married one of the world's most awesome women, Anna Kang. On their honeymoon, she let a pair of computers be set up in the hotel room so that he could program when the mood struck him. No woman I know would allow such a thing to happen.
why two?
When you have female company it may actually be possible to have both hands free for using one or more computers.
hey, i can see that the docs are bad, and i have NO idea what they should say - should I fix it? would you want me to fix it?
That's how wikis work.
I hope that is not how wikis work. I hope that wiki articles are written by those who actually know something on a subject - not by those in search of knowledge on a subject.
But perhaps this is open source documentation in a nutshell. If we all create what we need ourselves and share it with the world, documentation will be created by those who don't know how the software works - otherwise they would not need the documentation.
No one is perfect, yet somehow society demands perfection from its doctors.
Funny, as I member of society, I see the situation as this:
No one is perfect, yet somehow doctors always arrogantly pretends that they could not be wrong.
You have set the standards yourself. Live with it.
As an engineer, working with processes much, much simpler than the human body, I am fully prepared to accept that doctors can't know everything because the human body is far from fully understood. When they pretend to do so anyway, it insults my intelligence.
(Please disregard my first post. Should have used preview.)
No one is perfect, yet somehow society demands perfection from its doctors.
Funny, as I member of society, I see the situation as this:
No one is perfect, yet somehow doctors always arrogantly pretends that they could not be wrong.
You have set the standards yourself. Live with it.
As an engineer, working with processes much, much simpler than the human body, I am fully prepared to accept that doctors can't know everything because the human body is far from fully understood. When they pretend to do so anyway, it insults my intelligence.
XP was released in 2001. It got nearly a decade of mainstream support, and it going to have 13 years in total support.
I see this a lot, and I think it is the wrong way to count support length.
Support length of Software version X should be calculated from the release date of Software version X+1, or from the date where sale of version X stopped.
If a company releases a new version every 10 years and pulls support after 10 years + 1 day, I will consider the support rather shitty.
(In the discussion of XP it can even be argued that support length should be calculated from the release date of version X+2, since a large part of the user base discarded version X+1 and some of them even went as far as removing it from new computers.)
The same economist would probably also tell them that this is usually only true if the market is so that lowering them price would open up the market to a much larger part of the population or that people would consume vastly more. Neither is really true, almost everyone everywhere listens to some music already and most people won't be dedicating much more time to listen to it nor can they listen to more than one song at once.
Huh? You don't need to dedicate more time to listening if you buy more CDs. And you certainly don't need to listen to more songs simultaneously.
You simply need to listen to each CD less frequently.
I can only speak for my self, but since I "discovered" the £4-8 CDs on amazon.co.uk, I have bought a handful of CDs every month. Before that, I didn't even buy one each year.
The defense's response was merely a motion for discovery of the plaintiff's latitude and longitude.
Why is this "insightful". Shouldn't this be "funny"? Or, possibly "sickly funny"?
Probably because this joke sums up the problem very well: If remote execution of terrorists without trial or public knowledge is acceptable, then how do we know that only terrorists are executed?
Or, if I need to spell it out: How do we know that people aren't executed, simply because they are a PITA and use the Freedom of Information Act against those in control of the drones?
With the engine past the redline there is very little vacuum to operate the power brakes. Without power assist the brakes may not be able to overcome the engine
apparently not true
In your link, they say "Break once". That is precisely because the engine doesn't produce vacuum with the throttle fully open. So the GP is partially correct.
The wrong assumption here is that engine vacuum is not used until you hit the brakes. It is. The brake booster is "charged" with vacuum when the throttle is closed. But this charge can only be used once. So if you hit the brakes, release them and hit them again, you will not get much help from the brake booster.
A vacuum brake booster does not get vacuum when you hit the brakes. It is already "charged" with a vacuum before that. When you hit the brakes, a valve opens and s
Seriously, I don't understand this part: "Pink Floyd sued, claiming EMI was violating the contract, whereas EMI said the contract only applied to physical albums, not Internet sales."
Are they saying: "Oh no, Your Honour, we did not violate the agreement, because there was no agreement covering these sales. We just copied the music without permission and sold it on the Internet."
And they think that this would not be worse than merely splitting an album without permission?
I got a machine once with a whole lot of personal photos on it. I told the IT manager about it and he said all machines are supposed to be imaged between owners.
I can just imagine how the conversation between the IT guys went wrong...
I used to work for a company that made documentation on things that primarily were on this extra screen layer. No biggie irfanView has a utility to catch this but still.
I really do not understand this part: "The National Institute of Standards and Technology said it's investigating whether it needs to modify [CC] its standards to include password authentication software on host systems."
This has already been proven to be very unsafe hardware. The fact that you can access the data without using the original software and without knowing the user's password should leave no doubt. As long as you have some software which says "Open Sesame" in the same way as the original software, you will get access.
So why was this not discovered during the NIST certification process? And why do NIST state that they may need to approve the software too to protect against this?
It seems to me that NIST blames the software so they will not have to take blame for their faulty certification of the hardware.
It turns out that there was a check valve between the intake manifold and the brake booster. If it leaks/leaks, then high pressure air prevents the application of the brakes.
Were the American Audi 5000s really that different from the European Audi 100/200s? I always thought it was the same car with another model number
I have owned two European models which had hydraulic brake boosters, connected to the power steering pump. Given that my cars were non-turbo models, it seems really strange that they would put an old-fashioned vacuum booster on a turbo model which - as you have already described - will have overpressure instead of vacuum in some situations.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this asshole still a cop who is allowed to drive, or has he been turned into a meter maid?
I assume his drivers license was revoked after he died in the accident.
He never claimed to pay 60% of his total earnings.
Actually he did. He said he was paying 60% tax. Go up the thread a little. If by "60%" he meant "on some of my income, but not all", then he was using the wrong words.
I had read it when I wrote my comment.
I repeat:
He never claimed to pay 60% of his total earnings.
The "of his total earnings" is purely guesswork by you.
He pays 60% of the earnings which are relevant for what was discussed. Everybody who understands the problem being discussed can clearly see that, and there no point in spelling it out.
Clearly, once you hit that income of $59001, you will not be charged 60% in taxes. Your effective tax rate will slowly increase as you earn more and more money, but unless there's another, higher tax rate over 60% you will (by definition) never be taxed at 60%.
Please, this is simple stuff. I don't know how you can fail to understand it.
Once he hits that income of $59001, he will be charged 60% in taxes of of every earning beyond those $59001. He never claimed to pay 60% of his total earnings.
The tax of the last earning is what you need to consider, when you have to decide between these two alternatives:
1. Work one extra day for money and then use the money to hire help for work at your household.
2. Do the work at your household yourself.
The GP is completely right.
In some countries centuries are actually labelled in that fashion.
I live in one of the three countries mentioned in your Wikepedia link. We use the same sequence numbering of centuries as the rest of the world: the 19th century, the 20th century, etc.
If this is what is meant with "ordinal numbering" in the Wikepedia article, then this part of the article is wrong: "In Swedish, Danish and Finnish centuries are typically not named ordinally".
But we ALSO have another informal way of saying it as described in the link, just as the English speaking do.
Well, as a native from one of the countries in that link - our way sometimes bleeds through when doing on-the-top-of-your-head translations. In Sweden the correct description of the years 1900-1999 is "nittonhundratalet" - literally translated as "the nineteenth century".
I know enough Swedish to know that this is a very bad translation.
The word "nittonhundratalet" is better translated into "the nineteen hundred age". Note that this says nothing about nittonhundratalet's position in a sequence of centuries in the same way as "the nineteenth century" does.
He will Tavel 1m/s as he approches 0 but he will never arive at 0, so no he will not reach the end of the bridge
So you actually think you have proven that the rabbit will never overtake the turtle?
He also married one of the world's most awesome women, Anna Kang. On their honeymoon, she let a pair of computers be set up in the hotel room so that he could program when the mood struck him. No woman I know would allow such a thing to happen.
why two?
When you have female company it may actually be possible to have both hands free for using one or more computers.
I like Apple, but let me be the first to say they they do need a team of physics PHDs to work on antenna design...
Apparently, they let a team of PHBs work on a press release instead.
No, ISPs do not record what sites you visit. At least none that I know of (and I work in the industry). Why would they ?
Because they are required to do so?
I don't know about the rest of the EU, but the Danish implementation of the directive requires ISPs to record what sites I visit.
I don't know if this is one of the requirements that are voluntary for the member states to implement, though.
hey, i can see that the docs are bad, and i have NO idea what they should say - should I fix it? would you want me to fix it?
That's how wikis work.
I hope that is not how wikis work. I hope that wiki articles are written by those who actually know something on a subject - not by those in search of knowledge on a subject.
But perhaps this is open source documentation in a nutshell. If we all create what we need ourselves and share it with the world, documentation will be created by those who don't know how the software works - otherwise they would not need the documentation.
No one is perfect, yet somehow society demands perfection from its doctors.
Funny, as I member of society, I see the situation as this:
No one is perfect, yet somehow doctors always arrogantly pretends that they could not be wrong.
You have set the standards yourself. Live with it.
As an engineer, working with processes much, much simpler than the human body, I am fully prepared to accept that doctors can't know everything because the human body is far from fully understood. When they pretend to do so anyway, it insults my intelligence.
(Please disregard my first post. Should have used preview.)
No one is perfect, yet somehow society demands perfection from its doctors.
Funny, as I member of society, I see the situation as this:
No one is perfect, yet somehow doctors always arrogantly pretends that they could not be wrong.
You have set the standards yourself. Live with it.
As an engineer, working with processes much, much simpler than the human body, I am fully prepared to accept that doctors can't know everything because the human body is far from fully understood. When they pretend to do so anyway, it insults my intelligence.
XP was released in 2001. It got nearly a decade of mainstream support, and it going to have 13 years in total support.
I see this a lot, and I think it is the wrong way to count support length.
Support length of Software version X should be calculated from the release date of Software version X+1, or from the date where sale of version X stopped.
If a company releases a new version every 10 years and pulls support after 10 years + 1 day, I will consider the support rather shitty.
(In the discussion of XP it can even be argued that support length should be calculated from the release date of version X+2, since a large part of the user base discarded version X+1 and some of them even went as far as removing it from new computers.)
The same economist would probably also tell them that this is usually only true if the market is so that lowering them price would open up the market to a much larger part of the population or that people would consume vastly more. Neither is really true, almost everyone everywhere listens to some music already and most people won't be dedicating much more time to listen to it nor can they listen to more than one song at once.
Huh? You don't need to dedicate more time to listening if you buy more CDs. And you certainly don't need to listen to more songs simultaneously.
You simply need to listen to each CD less frequently.
I can only speak for my self, but since I "discovered" the £4-8 CDs on amazon.co.uk, I have bought a handful of CDs every month. Before that, I didn't even buy one each year.
The defense's response was merely a motion for discovery of the plaintiff's latitude and longitude.
Why is this "insightful". Shouldn't this be "funny"? Or, possibly "sickly funny"?
Probably because this joke sums up the problem very well:
If remote execution of terrorists without trial or public knowledge is acceptable, then how do we know that only terrorists are executed?
Or, if I need to spell it out:
How do we know that people aren't executed, simply because they are a PITA and use the Freedom of Information Act against those in control of the drones?
And this is what you get when you don't use preview.
Please disregard the last paragraph in the parent post.
With the engine past the redline there is very little vacuum to operate the power brakes. Without power assist the brakes may not be able to overcome the engine
apparently not true
In your link, they say "Break once". That is precisely because the engine doesn't produce vacuum with the throttle fully open. So the GP is partially correct.
The wrong assumption here is that engine vacuum is not used until you hit the brakes. It is. The brake booster is "charged" with vacuum when the throttle is closed. But this charge can only be used once. So if you hit the brakes, release them and hit them again, you will not get much help from the brake booster.
A vacuum brake booster does not get vacuum when you hit the brakes. It is already "charged" with a vacuum before that. When you hit the brakes, a valve opens and s
Seriously, I don't understand this part:
"Pink Floyd sued, claiming EMI was violating the contract, whereas EMI said the contract only applied to physical albums, not Internet sales."
Are they saying: "Oh no, Your Honour, we did not violate the agreement, because there was no agreement covering these sales. We just copied the music without permission and sold it on the Internet."
And they think that this would not be worse than merely splitting an album without permission?
I can just imagine how the conversation between the IT guys went wrong...
Did you acquire a license for IrfanView?
Well, Descent was released one year earlier, and it let you fly too.
Of course, you could ONLY fly in that game. But I still considered it an FPS anyway.
I really do not understand this part:
"The National Institute of Standards and Technology said it's investigating whether it needs to modify [CC] its standards to include password authentication software on host systems."
This has already been proven to be very unsafe hardware. The fact that you can access the data without using the original software and without knowing the user's password should leave no doubt. As long as you have some software which says "Open Sesame" in the same way as the original software, you will get access.
So why was this not discovered during the NIST certification process? And why do NIST state that they may need to approve the software too to protect against this?
It seems to me that NIST blames the software so they will not have to take blame for their faulty certification of the hardware.
I guess most of us could live with that.
Negation count needed?
Were the American Audi 5000s really that different from the European Audi 100/200s? I always thought it was the same car with another model number
I have owned two European models which had hydraulic brake boosters, connected to the power steering pump. Given that my cars were non-turbo models, it seems really strange that they would put an old-fashioned vacuum booster on a turbo model which - as you have already described - will have overpressure instead of vacuum in some situations.