So it sounds like Bing doesn't do as well in the misspelling department, and this kind-of makes up for it. If that's the case, this is OK as a short term fix, but by all means Microsoft had better be working on improving the way they handle misspellings if they ever want to displace Google in the search market.
Also, I'm not totally convinced they are deliberately copying Google. Perhaps just saw the search term and the linked website on the same page and implied a match.
You invented that strawman position out of thin air and assigned it to me.
It sounds to me like you assigned it to yourself so you could build your own strawman.
you did it because you knew you were not competent to refute anything that I actually said.
This coming from one who is clearly an expert at building such arguments. In what way does
the government is not a monolithic single-minded entity with a clearly-defined D&D-style "alignment"
really refute
Anyone who does not firmly believe the government is evil at this point is hopeless.
Using a specific definition of the word evil (saying that it somehow can not apply to an organization), will not save you from that organization. In the end of the day, your definition of evil has no practical application. Your refutation of my point is of no practical value either, since you've only refuted it in your own mind. It's just more meaningless words taking up space on a server somewhere. Much the same as this post, since it will likely fall on deaf ears.
You are hopeless if you believe meaningless words rationalizing the actions of an organization that clearly does evil indiscriminately all across the face of the earth will somehow save you from it.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Wait till you hear about the CIA. Anyone who does not firmly believe the government is evil at this point is hopeless. And no, voting for change is not the solution, it is the problem.
History has shown that the major US telecoms are willing to work with with the executive branch of the US government. Though this involvement, the government has been able to monitor all incoming and outgoing communications from the country since the '90s. They also have in place a massive wiretapping program to monitor the communications of individuals in the US, and have shown a willingness to do so regardless of the legality of intercepting such communication . Given that they have the ability to intercept any hard-line/satellite/cellular communication at will, it is reasonable to assume they may also have the capability to cut such communication. Even HAM radio operators could be shut down (although it would be difficult), since the military has weapons systems capable of jamming radio signals.
Your Facebook account is owned by Facebook. Facebook invested financial resources to develop it, and they have a financial interest in maintaining it.
If you consider that this continuous revenue stream may last the rest of your life, the value doesn't sound so unreasonable (they will likely make tens of thousands of dollars in advertising revenue during that time). If they charged you $100/year for an advertisement free service, you'd probably end up paying them around $6,000.
Furthermore, the $300,000,000 is divided between the lost accounts and the compromised ones. Either effects their advertising revenue.
I hope this guy decides not to do this anymore. How someone can make a living that way and sleep at night is beyond me. I honestly believe I'd rather starve to death.
I've always believed that the government existed more as a barrier between the people in charge and the people they are ruling. Removing them would be like firing your spokesmen and taking the job yourself. You might fire them to get another spokesmen, but you certainly wouldn't fire them in order to let people see how things really work.
I never received a dime from them, how am I supposed to pay back some kind of "dept" that I "owe" them? The money's not there, and moving forward it will continue to be less and less there. We need to find a better way to take care of our overweight diabetic Vietnam vets.
Imagine you take out a loan with a loan-shark. One day he tells you that he'll break your legs if you don't pay him back. But you can't pay him back, so you kill him instead. Who will come back to collect? He was the one with a financial interest in the loan.
It works the same way with social security. Only the program has a financial interest in the debt, cancel it and you no longer need to it back. Of course, there are people depending on social security money for their retirement/whatever, so you'd still need to figure out something else for them.
The same fundamentals apply: Don't spend what you don't have unless you have a really good reason. Politicians like to do a lot of hand waving to justify their bad behavior. Ideally they'd be honest and say "look, we can't do that because we can't afford to" when that's the case. But it's a lot easier to just say "yes we can" and let the next guy deal with it.
The federal government is completely out of control, and for all their deficit spending, they have not made a case that there will be any real return in the long run. All they say is they have to spend now to prevent an economic collapse, much the same way a homeowner might take a cash advance on a credit card to make a mortgage payment so that they can hold onto their house for another month.
It's dangerous to think that spending just for the sake of spending will spur economic activity. Economic activity is only really worthwhile if it produces tangible goods and services with real benefits. Hap-hazard spending will produce the same economic numbers in the short term, but over time it will become ineffective because it failed to produce anything or real value. In the end, you'll be worse off than you were at the beginning because of all the resources that you wasted, worse still if you accumulated debt.
So you you want to spend a couple billion to develop an atomic bomb that will allow you to spend the next 50 years bullying around less powerful nations, maybe it will pay off for you over the next 50 years in a real way (of course the chickens will come home to roost on that one). But if you want to give everyone a thousand dollars to blow however they want, it isn't likely to pay out in the long term.
Your model may work for a household, but not a government.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, but politicians like to say it's not to justify their irresponsible behavior.
Actually the effects of the cosmological constant are quite well understood.
The quantity itself is a hypothetical parameter used to justify the difference between a theoretical model of the universe and observable reality. Don't confuse models and theory with reality. If the theory matched reality, there wouldn't even be a cosmological constant.
I almost feel silly saying something so obvious, but here goes.
How do you know a negative constant would lead to any life at all? It seems like things would be so radically different that none of the assumptions and observations you can make in our universe would still apply. This discussion is not serious, it is pure foolishness, just like children sitting around playing make believe. Not that that can't be productive and useful, but at least call it what it is.
Slashdot Mirror
So it sounds like Bing doesn't do as well in the misspelling department, and this kind-of makes up for it. If that's the case, this is OK as a short term fix, but by all means Microsoft had better be working on improving the way they handle misspellings if they ever want to displace Google in the search market.
Also, I'm not totally convinced they are deliberately copying Google. Perhaps just saw the search term and the linked website on the same page and implied a match.
Then perhaps you are not hopeless.
It sounds to me like you assigned it to yourself so you could build your own strawman.
This coming from one who is clearly an expert at building such arguments. In what way does
really refute
Using a specific definition of the word evil (saying that it somehow can not apply to an organization), will not save you from that organization. In the end of the day, your definition of evil has no practical application. Your refutation of my point is of no practical value either, since you've only refuted it in your own mind. It's just more meaningless words taking up space on a server somewhere. Much the same as this post, since it will likely fall on deaf ears.
You are hopeless if you believe meaningless words rationalizing the actions of an organization that clearly does evil indiscriminately all across the face of the earth will somehow save you from it.
Wait till you hear about the CIA. Anyone who does not firmly believe the government is evil at this point is hopeless. And no, voting for change is not the solution, it is the problem.
But in the real world, religion is on the decline.
History has shown that the major US telecoms are willing to work with with the executive branch of the US government. Though this involvement, the government has been able to monitor all incoming and outgoing communications from the country since the '90s. They also have in place a massive wiretapping program to monitor the communications of individuals in the US, and have shown a willingness to do so regardless of the legality of intercepting such communication . Given that they have the ability to intercept any hard-line/satellite/cellular communication at will, it is reasonable to assume they may also have the capability to cut such communication. Even HAM radio operators could be shut down (although it would be difficult), since the military has weapons systems capable of jamming radio signals.
Your Facebook account is owned by Facebook. Facebook invested financial resources to develop it, and they have a financial interest in maintaining it.
If you consider that this continuous revenue stream may last the rest of your life, the value doesn't sound so unreasonable (they will likely make tens of thousands of dollars in advertising revenue during that time). If they charged you $100/year for an advertisement free service, you'd probably end up paying them around $6,000.
Furthermore, the $300,000,000 is divided between the lost accounts and the compromised ones. Either effects their advertising revenue.
I hope this guy decides not to do this anymore. How someone can make a living that way and sleep at night is beyond me. I honestly believe I'd rather starve to death.
I've always believed that the government existed more as a barrier between the people in charge and the people they are ruling. Removing them would be like firing your spokesmen and taking the job yourself. You might fire them to get another spokesmen, but you certainly wouldn't fire them in order to let people see how things really work.
I would be really surprised if we don't already have one.
No technology is readily available on the moon. You're right about there being lots of rocks though.
I think you are joking, but Ayn Rand actually wrote a number of nonfiction books.
If I'm going to have ads, I'd rather have them custom made for me. This is an upgrade.
Sounds like you're fucked. You can't squeeze blood from a rock.
No thank you, I appreciate the advance notice that the end times are at hand.
We already invented a thing for this, it's called the spoiler alert.
I never received a dime from them, how am I supposed to pay back some kind of "dept" that I "owe" them? The money's not there, and moving forward it will continue to be less and less there. We need to find a better way to take care of our overweight diabetic Vietnam vets.
Imagine you take out a loan with a loan-shark. One day he tells you that he'll break your legs if you don't pay him back. But you can't pay him back, so you kill him instead. Who will come back to collect? He was the one with a financial interest in the loan.
It works the same way with social security. Only the program has a financial interest in the debt, cancel it and you no longer need to it back. Of course, there are people depending on social security money for their retirement/whatever, so you'd still need to figure out something else for them.
Yeah, so if you eliminate it, you'll eliminate a large portion of the national debt. It's a win-win.
The same fundamentals apply: Don't spend what you don't have unless you have a really good reason. Politicians like to do a lot of hand waving to justify their bad behavior. Ideally they'd be honest and say "look, we can't do that because we can't afford to" when that's the case. But it's a lot easier to just say "yes we can" and let the next guy deal with it.
The federal government is completely out of control, and for all their deficit spending, they have not made a case that there will be any real return in the long run. All they say is they have to spend now to prevent an economic collapse, much the same way a homeowner might take a cash advance on a credit card to make a mortgage payment so that they can hold onto their house for another month.
Social Security isn't really a service. And it's our biggest expense. Let's cut it.
It's dangerous to think that spending just for the sake of spending will spur economic activity. Economic activity is only really worthwhile if it produces tangible goods and services with real benefits. Hap-hazard spending will produce the same economic numbers in the short term, but over time it will become ineffective because it failed to produce anything or real value. In the end, you'll be worse off than you were at the beginning because of all the resources that you wasted, worse still if you accumulated debt.
So you you want to spend a couple billion to develop an atomic bomb that will allow you to spend the next 50 years bullying around less powerful nations, maybe it will pay off for you over the next 50 years in a real way (of course the chickens will come home to roost on that one). But if you want to give everyone a thousand dollars to blow however they want, it isn't likely to pay out in the long term.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, but politicians like to say it's not to justify their irresponsible behavior.
The quantity itself is a hypothetical parameter used to justify the difference between a theoretical model of the universe and observable reality. Don't confuse models and theory with reality. If the theory matched reality, there wouldn't even be a cosmological constant.
You've assumed it's random, which is not necessarily true.
I almost feel silly saying something so obvious, but here goes.
How do you know a negative constant would lead to any life at all? It seems like things would be so radically different that none of the assumptions and observations you can make in our universe would still apply. This discussion is not serious, it is pure foolishness, just like children sitting around playing make believe. Not that that can't be productive and useful, but at least call it what it is.