Ya, its not open, even though the resulting source code is open source? Interesting. Also, the GPs quip was "I'll be more impressed when MS, for example, helps with the SAMBA project." Samba now has the documentation... short of writing the code themselves, what more do you want MS to do to help the Samba team?
Samba never stepped foot into court. MS took that step after losing an appeal in the EU, but the step hadn't been dictated to MS by the EU either. Regardless, that was over two years ago, so for someone today to be claiming MS is actively getting in the way of the Samba project is nothing but FUD.
I think they did drop that, because I recently switched to IE8, but keep FF to make sure my web pages work with it. I remember having to tell it NOT to "ensure it was the default" and switch the default back to IE8.
There's an Internet icon that picks up on your default browser. That's the icon he's talking about. If he followed you're advice, FF would be listed there twice, which is a waste of space.
What insurance do you have? I've never had to fill in anything.... everytime my policy is up for renewal, I'm only sent a bill. I have to do nothing but send in a check. And if you're not in an accident, how would they even know if you're telling the truth?
If you're going to claim that they get the milage from DMV registration renewal, then why do they need GPS devices installed?
Where does age factor into experience? Why is the 40 year old driving 200 miles and not the 18yr old? It may very well be the other way around. Also, where you live plays a part.. whos going to be the better driver? Someone commonly driving in both city and country traffic, or someone that spent the past 50 years driving on small country roads, some of which have only recently been paved?
I guess this is appeal to authority, but actuaries aren't generally known for their wild flights of fantasy.
Except your wrong. Remember, they're a business trying to make money. They also push for laws which actually make driving less safe... lowering speed limits, installing red light cameras, etc. These things (unexpectedly) raise accident rates, and civil engineers who have no stake in red light camera vs. longer yellow light time say it, but oddly the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (funded by insurance companies) have "studies" that contradict those finding. You see, if accident rates actually went down, they couldn't justify higher premiums. They have a vested interest in making things "just dangrous enough," so to speak.
If Insurance companies are offering lower premiums for people who drive shorter distances then it's almost certainly because statistically they pay out less in claims to those drivers. Is there really some reason to suppose otherwise?
Who said they'd be offering lower rates for those driving less? If by "lower rates," you mean they raise the rates for people that drive an average number of miles or more, technically you're right. But I doubt rates would drop for those driving below some average. Besides, most accidents occur within a few miles of home (and no, that's not the majority of trips, otherwise urban spraw would not be a problem).. so why does miles driven really matter?
If you like, feel free to find an actual study (not funded by the IIHS) that says those that drive more are automatcially more of a risk.
Possibley. But with insurance paid via gasoline taxes, I sure can be a lot more reckless because even though my car is more expensive, I'm not paying for the insurance at all... those chumps buying gas would be.
And yes, in all seriousness, there are people that COULD afford a fancier car, but the ONGOING higher insurance premiums make that a deal breaker. I guess you've never heard of TCO?
Um, how is it weighted by relevent statics if the insurance company currently doesn't know the miles driven? Thats the thing, they say it will reduce accidents, but they don't know that people that drive more are more of a risk... it sounds like it'd be obvious, but at one time it was also obvious the earth was flat.
Um, I believe the problem was that gas prices rose, people didn't (or couldn't cut back) and that this likely contributed to the recession. Remember, most agree it started in 2007, when prices were climbing. It wouldn't be suprising that as people were paying more for gas they were spending less on everything else (and the oil companies pocketed the profit).
Except that we do know this to be true... its been proven in scientific studies. Do you have a study that shows driving more increases your risk for an accident?
How do you get better at doing anything? You do it. You'd be a much better driver, having had more experiences on the road, been in more different areas, and conditioned daily to the rigors of driving. And that's the problem; there's no way to measure one's experience to offset the amount of miles driven when there should be.
I'd argue it'd suck worse with one bloated and mismanaged government.. just because of the sheer size (and that fact that as one person in the entire world, your opinion matters not).
No, I did not. You said I was nitpiking an oversimplification. Its not an oversimplification.
Now you repeat the nit-picking of my oversimplification again. Please engage your cache coherence next time.
Please improve your reading comprehension.
Let me get this straight - you think that the fact that the USPS relaxed their monopoly to allow extremely urgent letters by other shippers somehow means that they did not maintain a monopoly on normal letters?
No, I said what you posted doesn't at all show that FedEx, if it wanted, couldn't provide rates for very light items. As long as it doesn't use the standard letter addressing, they could do this. If they offered such a rate class (again, not for "letters" but for "very light packages"), there's nothing preventing from stuffing my 1 page of writing into their packaging, and nothing stopping them from shipping it. Of course the fact that they won't only shows one thing; as always, bulk is cheaper, and for those that would use this only occasionally, they can get away with charging a higher price.
Second -- who gives a damn whether it's an urban legend or not, the point still stands.
Um, not really. The point was that a single law about something exteremly specific was an absurd number of words. That's not the case.
And if you want to drive the point home differently, we have entire libraries dedicated to containing our code of laws.
That points to the number of laws.. oh and laws which negate earlier laws, or amend them, often restating the orginal law. Yes, its complex, but that's what happens because if you're not precise, something slips though a technicality. Personally, I don't mind that when dealing with things like workers safety, as too commonly they are the ones getting away with endangering their employees to save a buck.
Judicial rulings also form part of that code, and even a law professor will tell you the answer to any legal question these days is a definitive "maybe."
Case law is not law though. The fact that it can (and should) be ignored if appropriate is why the answer is maybe. The reality is that pretty much each situtation is unique, and so we can't be sure of anything until its done
You: "Your honor I didn't do it. My line was open anyone could have done it." Them: "Fine, provide us with evidence that it wasn't you."
Fixed that. Assume that you say someone else vandilized your house. You keep your doors locked. There are no signs of forced entry. It seems likely then that you or someone else with access to the house did it. See the problem? Your statement still doesn't exclude you.
Leaving it unlocked is not an inventation to tamper with it! Way to keep the blame the victim mentality going. Locked or not, its still private property and you still need to leave it alone. I swear, its almost communist thinking.
If you didn't want to discuss your African example, you should have ommitted it. But I find it to be a good example... because the net effect is not positive. The food is stolen by warlords, and frees up their resources for other things... like more guns. There was actually a story about this not to long ago. The efforts in Somolia are in fact fueling the pirates there..
Well, I disagree. I believe to prosecute for conspiracy the members of said conspiracy much actually put at least some part of their plan into motion. So you can plot all you want, so long as you never actually perform "step 1."
Slashdot Mirror
Ya, its not open, even though the resulting source code is open source? Interesting. Also, the GPs quip was "I'll be more impressed when MS, for example, helps with the SAMBA project." Samba now has the documentation... short of writing the code themselves, what more do you want MS to do to help the Samba team?
Samba never stepped foot into court. MS took that step after losing an appeal in the EU, but the step hadn't been dictated to MS by the EU either. Regardless, that was over two years ago, so for someone today to be claiming MS is actively getting in the way of the Samba project is nothing but FUD.
Oh, you mean like this: http://www.onekit.com/store/review/microsoft_deal_gives_samba_access_to_windows_protocol_documentation.html
Also, did you consider that TomTom had some patents on thing MS might be using, and thus only sued to get a deal to be struck? http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/20/0215215
Na... just let your beliefs obscure any facts.
Huh... FF 3.5 is slower than IE now, and I can't really disable tabbed browsing, which I hate. At least I still have a choice in IE.
I think they did drop that, because I recently switched to IE8, but keep FF to make sure my web pages work with it. I remember having to tell it NOT to "ensure it was the default" and switch the default back to IE8.
There's an Internet icon that picks up on your default browser. That's the icon he's talking about. If he followed you're advice, FF would be listed there twice, which is a waste of space.
What insurance do you have? I've never had to fill in anything.... everytime my policy is up for renewal, I'm only sent a bill. I have to do nothing but send in a check. And if you're not in an accident, how would they even know if you're telling the truth?
If you're going to claim that they get the milage from DMV registration renewal, then why do they need GPS devices installed?
Where does age factor into experience? Why is the 40 year old driving 200 miles and not the 18yr old? It may very well be the other way around. Also, where you live plays a part.. whos going to be the better driver? Someone commonly driving in both city and country traffic, or someone that spent the past 50 years driving on small country roads, some of which have only recently been paved?
I guess this is appeal to authority, but actuaries aren't generally known for their wild flights of fantasy.
Except your wrong. Remember, they're a business trying to make money. They also push for laws which actually make driving less safe... lowering speed limits, installing red light cameras, etc. These things (unexpectedly) raise accident rates, and civil engineers who have no stake in red light camera vs. longer yellow light time say it, but oddly the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (funded by insurance companies) have "studies" that contradict those finding. You see, if accident rates actually went down, they couldn't justify higher premiums. They have a vested interest in making things "just dangrous enough," so to speak.
If Insurance companies are offering lower premiums for people who drive shorter distances then it's almost certainly because statistically they pay out less in claims to those drivers. Is there really some reason to suppose otherwise?
Who said they'd be offering lower rates for those driving less? If by "lower rates," you mean they raise the rates for people that drive an average number of miles or more, technically you're right. But I doubt rates would drop for those driving below some average. Besides, most accidents occur within a few miles of home (and no, that's not the majority of trips, otherwise urban spraw would not be a problem).. so why does miles driven really matter?
If you like, feel free to find an actual study (not funded by the IIHS) that says those that drive more are automatcially more of a risk.
Possibley. But with insurance paid via gasoline taxes, I sure can be a lot more reckless because even though my car is more expensive, I'm not paying for the insurance at all... those chumps buying gas would be.
And yes, in all seriousness, there are people that COULD afford a fancier car, but the ONGOING higher insurance premiums make that a deal breaker. I guess you've never heard of TCO?
Um, how is it weighted by relevent statics if the insurance company currently doesn't know the miles driven? Thats the thing, they say it will reduce accidents, but they don't know that people that drive more are more of a risk... it sounds like it'd be obvious, but at one time it was also obvious the earth was flat.
Um, I believe the problem was that gas prices rose, people didn't (or couldn't cut back) and that this likely contributed to the recession. Remember, most agree it started in 2007, when prices were climbing. It wouldn't be suprising that as people were paying more for gas they were spending less on everything else (and the oil companies pocketed the profit).
Didn't you read the FOB? Some of them end up killing each other.. so no worries.
Except that we do know this to be true... its been proven in scientific studies. Do you have a study that shows driving more increases your risk for an accident?
Awesome! With this idea i'll be able to afford the $100,000 Tesla Roadster, because someone with a beater will be paying for me.
However, all things are not equal.
How do you get better at doing anything? You do it. You'd be a much better driver, having had more experiences on the road, been in more different areas, and conditioned daily to the rigors of driving. And that's the problem; there's no way to measure one's experience to offset the amount of miles driven when there should be.
I'd argue it'd suck worse with one bloated and mismanaged government.. just because of the sheer size (and that fact that as one person in the entire world, your opinion matters not).
I call Vault 69.
First you agree.
No, I did not. You said I was nitpiking an oversimplification. Its not an oversimplification.
Now you repeat the nit-picking of my oversimplification again. Please engage your cache coherence next time.
Please improve your reading comprehension.
Let me get this straight - you think that the fact that the USPS relaxed their monopoly to allow extremely urgent letters by other shippers somehow means that they did not maintain a monopoly on normal letters?
No, I said what you posted doesn't at all show that FedEx, if it wanted, couldn't provide rates for very light items. As long as it doesn't use the standard letter addressing, they could do this. If they offered such a rate class (again, not for "letters" but for "very light packages"), there's nothing preventing from stuffing my 1 page of writing into their packaging, and nothing stopping them from shipping it. Of course the fact that they won't only shows one thing; as always, bulk is cheaper, and for those that would use this only occasionally, they can get away with charging a higher price.
Second -- who gives a damn whether it's an urban legend or not, the point still stands.
Um, not really. The point was that a single law about something exteremly specific was an absurd number of words. That's not the case.
And if you want to drive the point home differently, we have entire libraries dedicated to containing our code of laws.
That points to the number of laws.. oh and laws which negate earlier laws, or amend them, often restating the orginal law. Yes, its complex, but that's what happens because if you're not precise, something slips though a technicality. Personally, I don't mind that when dealing with things like workers safety, as too commonly they are the ones getting away with endangering their employees to save a buck.
Judicial rulings also form part of that code, and even a law professor will tell you the answer to any legal question these days is a definitive "maybe."
Case law is not law though. The fact that it can (and should) be ignored if appropriate is why the answer is maybe. The reality is that pretty much each situtation is unique, and so we can't be sure of anything until its done
You: "Your honor I didn't do it. My line was open anyone could have done it."
Them: "Fine, provide us with evidence that it wasn't you."
Fixed that. Assume that you say someone else vandilized your house. You keep your doors locked. There are no signs of forced entry. It seems likely then that you or someone else with access to the house did it. See the problem? Your statement still doesn't exclude you.
How is something left on the seat NOT visible to someone outside the car?
Leaving it unlocked is not an inventation to tamper with it! Way to keep the blame the victim mentality going. Locked or not, its still private property and you still need to leave it alone. I swear, its almost communist thinking.
If you didn't want to discuss your African example, you should have ommitted it. But I find it to be a good example... because the net effect is not positive. The food is stolen by warlords, and frees up their resources for other things... like more guns. There was actually a story about this not to long ago. The efforts in Somolia are in fact fueling the pirates there..
Well, I disagree. I believe to prosecute for conspiracy the members of said conspiracy much actually put at least some part of their plan into motion. So you can plot all you want, so long as you never actually perform "step 1."