If that bothers you, tell it to use less. I seem to recall you specify how much memory it is allowed to use in percentage to the overall memory available.
And here I was, thinking "they already HAVE attacked Iran (think gov-ordered air force bombings of [research?] nuclear plant). It's not like any side in that conflict doesn't have a history. I don't know if there are active "insurgency" groups in Iran, but rest assure that if there is, Israel is making damn sure they are getting help. If they are not, they are either fools or more terrified about an Iran that runs truly amock. Say what you want (I'm not one to usually defend fundamentalists in general, Iran in particular) but with experiences such as that, there is no wonder they are placing much of their current nuclear program well under ground. Also, as Korea and Iraq has shown; either you have a way at striking the US where the home opinion really will not tolerate it or you are pretty much fucked if you don't follow the party line.
It is a sad, sad day I find myself in when the arguments I use seem to justify the actions of dictatorships stuck in the middle ages. What does that say about things?
They are politicians, why should this bother them? They'll just leave the problem solving to someone else. And as everyone knows, the legal system will only use the new powers to do good when it is evident that the found person is in fact the culprit. No one ever interpreted a law by its words rather then by its intention, did they?
Rivals? To compare the educational and scientific value of the BBC and the Discovery Channel is like comparing a university lecture to a drunk guy at the street corner screaming "the world is coming to an end":
Somewhere a PR company is getting a fat bonus cheque and a note saying "Job well done. Here is another $1M. Looking forward to working with you again."
No, it's not. You can use it as such but a surprisingly high percentage of users pay. If Slashdot would have such high numbers the editors could probably drive around in Ferraris again and play it like it was the late 90s.
Actually he entered the Zoomr picture after the base flickr-rippof-design was in place. He doesn't show any signs of wanting to diverge from there, but it most certainly is not his creation.
You are partly right in my misunderstanding. I glanced at the wikipedia article about it and got as much but I still felt it was an apt question. I mean, shouldn't the papal infallibility be assumed with regard to the papal position itself?
Assuming a fairly normal rate of return, the foundation should be able to spend its entire (current) endowment over the next 7 years and yet still have the same amount of money at the end of that time...
Assuming just that, "normal rate of return", leaves a problem though. Let me see if I can put forth an example that makes sense (since some would argue I usually fail at that). A dollar today is worth more then a dollar in a year. How much more? 1 / (1 + "normal rate of return") - 1 is how much more. So in essence, there is little point in investing charitable money today in order to spend it tomorrow (given the assumption that there are worthwhile projects available today).
So why do it then? I see a few possible answers. One is of course that you feel that you can not extend your organisation far enough to simply spend all the money in one moment. Fair enough. That is the positive possibility though. The other "extreme" possibility is a bit more dark. Being a charity might not be exactly the same as being a business since you have no shareholders screaming for their fair interest payments. On the other hand, that is a fairly pointless difference. If you set up a bureaucracy (and I use the word without the associated stigma) it has but one overwhelming internal goal, shareholders present or not: continual existence.
So ask yourself, which of the two possible paths will provide the organisation with the most chance of this continual existence; to spend all money right now or to put the money to work and only spend the interest. Then ask yourself, which is the more 'humane' approach: to save two people today or one person today and one in a year. Of course the answer is not entirely clear cut and I'm sure philosophies and religions have split up due to smaller matters. Ask a foundation that very question though and I'm certain 99% will pick the first. Why is it then that they follow the other path?
Given these two things, it's not entirely out of this world to hold the opinion that if an entity calls itself a charity it could at least invest in things that doesn't make this place a worse place. Economy is a strange mistress and she is not easy not cheat on. She balances things out in the end no matter how clever you think you are.
Any control they did possess was an abuse of power, corruption and all that, and of course not ever pope, cardinal and bishop fell victim to it, but those that did really left a dark stain on the Church's reputation.
I'm sorry, is papal infallibility a dogma, doctrine, teaching or theory?
Careful there cowboy. You might be violating all sorts of laws by direct linking to videos like that. Imagine all the ad revenue that you are stealing from youtube. The nerve of some people.
That was never my point. For one thing, kids develop at different rates. Neither was my point to make the parent (pun slightly intended) feel like I singled him out. My point was *drum roll* that people should read to their kids and read with their kids. If they learn how to read from that (which I find highly likely) then good. But at the very least it gives them an introduction to literature, HP or otherwise.
Nor has he been introduced to the joys of masochism and the tender loving that only a strange man entering your house in the middle of the night can give you.
Slashdot Mirror
You're imagining things.
At least that would explain how each new generation can somehow find new depts to plummet too. It is the old people that change, not the new people.
If that bothers you, tell it to use less. I seem to recall you specify how much memory it is allowed to use in percentage to the overall memory available.
I guess they needed four additional Eurofighters. Got to have 'em all! Or is that Pokemon? I always get the two confused.
And here I was, thinking "they already HAVE attacked Iran (think gov-ordered air force bombings of [research?] nuclear plant). It's not like any side in that conflict doesn't have a history. I don't know if there are active "insurgency" groups in Iran, but rest assure that if there is, Israel is making damn sure they are getting help. If they are not, they are either fools or more terrified about an Iran that runs truly amock. Say what you want (I'm not one to usually defend fundamentalists in general, Iran in particular) but with experiences such as that, there is no wonder they are placing much of their current nuclear program well under ground. Also, as Korea and Iraq has shown; either you have a way at striking the US where the home opinion really will not tolerate it or you are pretty much fucked if you don't follow the party line.
It is a sad, sad day I find myself in when the arguments I use seem to justify the actions of dictatorships stuck in the middle ages. What does that say about things?
Sure it is. If you are doing the right thing for the right reason is another matter.
They are politicians, why should this bother them? They'll just leave the problem solving to someone else. And as everyone knows, the legal system will only use the new powers to do good when it is evident that the found person is in fact the culprit. No one ever interpreted a law by its words rather then by its intention, did they?
Rivals? To compare the educational and scientific value of the BBC and the Discovery Channel is like comparing a university lecture to a drunk guy at the street corner screaming "the world is coming to an end":
Somewhere a PR company is getting a fat bonus cheque and a note saying "Job well done. Here is another $1M. Looking forward to working with you again."
Sure you would.
With a monopoly in effect there is no subsidising. You think the price of Windows reflects actual costs? It reflects the price the market will bear.
No, it's not. You can use it as such but a surprisingly high percentage of users pay. If Slashdot would have such high numbers the editors could probably drive around in Ferraris again and play it like it was the late 90s.
Actually he entered the Zoomr picture after the base flickr-rippof-design was in place. He doesn't show any signs of wanting to diverge from there, but it most certainly is not his creation.
You are partly right in my misunderstanding. I glanced at the wikipedia article about it and got as much but I still felt it was an apt question. I mean, shouldn't the papal infallibility be assumed with regard to the papal position itself?
Who keeps the metric system down?
Assuming just that, "normal rate of return", leaves a problem though. Let me see if I can put forth an example that makes sense (since some would argue I usually fail at that). A dollar today is worth more then a dollar in a year. How much more? 1 / (1 + "normal rate of return") - 1 is how much more. So in essence, there is little point in investing charitable money today in order to spend it tomorrow (given the assumption that there are worthwhile projects available today).
So why do it then? I see a few possible answers. One is of course that you feel that you can not extend your organisation far enough to simply spend all the money in one moment. Fair enough. That is the positive possibility though. The other "extreme" possibility is a bit more dark. Being a charity might not be exactly the same as being a business since you have no shareholders screaming for their fair interest payments. On the other hand, that is a fairly pointless difference. If you set up a bureaucracy (and I use the word without the associated stigma) it has but one overwhelming internal goal, shareholders present or not: continual existence.
So ask yourself, which of the two possible paths will provide the organisation with the most chance of this continual existence; to spend all money right now or to put the money to work and only spend the interest. Then ask yourself, which is the more 'humane' approach: to save two people today or one person today and one in a year. Of course the answer is not entirely clear cut and I'm sure philosophies and religions have split up due to smaller matters. Ask a foundation that very question though and I'm certain 99% will pick the first. Why is it then that they follow the other path?
Given these two things, it's not entirely out of this world to hold the opinion that if an entity calls itself a charity it could at least invest in things that doesn't make this place a worse place. Economy is a strange mistress and she is not easy not cheat on. She balances things out in the end no matter how clever you think you are.
I'm sorry, is papal infallibility a dogma, doctrine, teaching or theory?
Please state that country.
So what do you call this show?
The aristocrats!
Careful there cowboy. You might be violating all sorts of laws by direct linking to videos like that. Imagine all the ad revenue that you are stealing from youtube. The nerve of some people.
That was never my point. For one thing, kids develop at different rates. Neither was my point to make the parent (pun slightly intended) feel like I singled him out. My point was *drum roll* that people should read to their kids and read with their kids. If they learn how to read from that (which I find highly likely) then good. But at the very least it gives them an introduction to literature, HP or otherwise.
Nor has he been introduced to the joys of masochism and the tender loving that only a strange man entering your house in the middle of the night can give you.
And Lucas intended there to be 9 Star Wars movies. He had them all in his head from day one. You can't make this stuff up, it has to be true.