One direction like one exact angle of incidence. Multiple cloaks won't help because you need an infinite number of them, or at least you need them per angle based on the bandwidth of microwave and the radius of the cloak--meaning a lot. Too much. It's a huge leap from "We've gotten elevators to work by using a rope and pully and waterwheel" to "soon we'll be able to lift things into space by anti-gravity".
if there are wiser beings watching us, waiting for us to demonstrate some semblance of social maturity, wouldn't such an act demonstrate our good intentions? Our growing maturity and responsibility? All interesting ideas.
Wot, noticing dolphins and birds are kind of smart and so genetically modifying them to make them people? Any wiser beings would think we're functionally retarded as a species.
I just bought a 1200sqft house with basement and if I weren't eternally single (never dated) I'd raise kids in that house. It's small but it's livable.
Look, I'm not a call-of-duty guy or whatever, medal of honor, apparently medal of buttsex on submarines this time around, whatever. But you have to admit that this sort of thing is good, solid cultural advancement. I mean, warfare isn't cultural advancement; access to history is, knowledge in all its forms is. Maybe they slipped some state secrets--I suspect there were implications, less revelation of direct classified data, stuff that hints too close to home. That's bad. But this whole "We should be silent and proud!' thing is stupid. Being an over-egotistical gaudy asshole is one thing, but this... this is a contribution to society. It has value.
Actually the development of iPod/iTunes is where life starts. We could have aborted AAPL anywhere before that and Jobs would have just wound up teaming up with Woz to start a brand new company, launch the iPod and iTunes, and it would have turned out just the same. Companies don't burst into life at inception; they have to gestate first.
Stupid pedantic point, but it is better than the original state when people were killed just cause. But, in case you didn't notice, only one western country tried outlawing alcohol, and it lasted like 15 years. Then it was undone because it was a stupid idea.
You just can't admit that people doing something new doesn't make the new thing better or the old thing worse, can you?
And notice how stonings, etc. don't happen anymore in western countries. In fact, you brought that up just because it's shocking and we don't do it anymore.
It went: Stone Everyone->Stone people over little things->Stone people over alcohol->Stone no-one
That's because a large portion of the planet has moved onto decapitation. It's also, more importantly, not true. Even the crucifiction thing in Egypt was just an elaborate hoax; stoning is the modern method.
Yeah, but Edison didn't. I'm not saying that people weren't wrong about fire, I'm saying Edison didn't prove them wrong.
Moving goalpost.
Maybe a revolutionary way of using market forces would work. So... what would that revolutionary way be?
You've been arguing that this simply isn't the case, rather than asking the important question. I'll give an answer after a quick non-sequitur...
And seriously, you just seem to move the goal-posts around like crazy.
Nah, I'm just disorganized. Argumentation is about sounding smart by looking organized and being well-spoken; I've never been organized.and I elucidate poorly.
Anyway to answer the above, I've been bouncing crap around in my head but haven't found an opportune time to just dump this: scropion vaccine. In Mexico, $250 at pharmacy. In the US, $3750 to the distributor, $3950 to the hospital, and $35,000 per dose to the patient. $50,000/year HIV maintenance drugs are like $200/year in Africa for the same exact shit from the same company. Open heart surgery--supplies, electricity, equipment, salaries--costs about $5000, but the bill is closer to a quarter million.
Some regulations are needed. Some regulations are very bad and wrong. In the US we tend to get the regulations that increase barrier to entry and destroy small business, while either slightly irritating or outright helping large, hostile businesses. Republicans scream regulation is bad, Democrats scream regulation is good, nobody wants to talk about what KIND of regulation. Obamacare is one kind and, in fact, you and I have both agreed that it's the wrong kind--the dispute is simply over WHY it's the wrong kind.
All you need to do is provide health care for all - poor and those with preexisting conditions. You can go single-payer. You can have private companies compete.
Pre-existing conditions creates the problem that we have to assume the pre-existing conditions in the risk pool, making healthcare much more expensive--insurance is about risk balance, and really lopping off the low hanging fruit. It's not about wealth redistribution. This becomes an issue even when you publicly fund everyone's insurance--the poor people in the system increase the risk, so premiums must increase to compensate. Sec, I'll get to that.
The reason poor people increase risk--and this is important, so pay attention and save forming counter-arguments for a second read-through--is because they get sick more. Poor people are culturally different; they're our neighbors, our sons and daughters, all that jazz, but they're different. They're poor, and a poor life requires different behaviors to survive. Rich and middle class people are EXTREMELY extracted; the middle class and the rich think the poor are all thieves and criminals--plenty are-
Everyone started with a system like ours. Then, slowly, one by one, they converted over to the system.
Everyone started as godless shitbags banging rocks together in the street, but then they found religion. Some of them (a lot of them) found religion like Judaism or Islam, where we stone people to death or behead them for minor things. Alcohol wasn't islam-illegal until some time in the 1400s.
Progress: we now execute people for consuming whiskey. This is better.
Also, people weren't crazy wrong. Extreme heat was required. Edison discovered that a proper filament being heated, and in an oxygen-free environment, could provide light without catching fire. It was a brilliant evolution of thought. Much like moving to a state-run health care system.
False, we have a lot of cool lights. I have a nightlight that emits a glowing green light but no heat. LEDs emit less heat. CFLs vaporize mercury still; CRTs used phosphorus and electron beams, which involved no actual fire.
Energy was required and the lowest state of energy tends to be heat--typically when something absorbs light, movement, etc, the energy is converted to heat--so all loss makes things warm. That is not the same thing as fire.
You false-equivalate the progression to electric lights with the progression to a state-run healthcare system as both being advancements. It's doubly-wrong since gas lighting is better than electric lighting in some ways--particularly health (sleep cycle) and particularly for the production of warmth in the winter as a bi-product--and since gas lighting can be made safe just as electric lighting can.
I'm assuming that the implementation of a socialized healthcare system is better than the implementation of a privatized healthcare system, because, all other things being equal, it is.
It is impossible for all other things to be equal by definition. Obamacare is a chain of insurance regulation laws and other such shit, which relies substantially on a privatized healthcare system but gives guarantees that everyone will be covered--that means the robber barons have an easier time overcharging and nice, shiny, friendly rules to maximize their abuse of. As you fix these problems, you extend more government control out until you completely eliminate any resemblance of the two systems. And it could end up very wrong.
But that's the case under the new federal regulations. It just sets some ground rules (which you don't seem offended by, because you ignored them when I brought them up), and some goals. Each state is encouraged to "do whatever" to meet those goals.
Then in my state "Whatever" equates to "do nothing" and we rely on the same system, nobody uninsured pays the mandatory penalty for not carrying insurance, insurance companies running in Maryland don't have to follow the Federal regulations, and healthcare providers are similarly unaffected.
Why do you think the early media reports were landslide for Romney? Why do you think it stayed so tense? Why do you think states were called before they were reporting, or that they were called for Romney at 74% reporting with 60% going to Obama? 97% chance of Obama victory. Obama's gonna win, Obama's winning, cool. Let's put in the Harry Potter DVDs and make some popcorn.
Don't watch Harry Potter, you faggots! Watch MSNBC and CSPAN so we can get ratings! Hey! HEY! HEY, CHECK IT PEOPLE, ROMNEY IS WINNING!
Do you honestly think that there is a communist plot? Or that it would still harkin back to 100+ year old tactics.
Well, that's one way to look at it. There are other ways to look at it, but they essentially mean the same thing minus intent. Think like FDR's reaction to The Great Depression, or Obama's reaction to the collapse of the banks and auto industry. Government money, government plans, government driving the economy--that's socialism leading into communism. In this case one or both of two things happened: A) the government lacked desire to move into communism, and so didn't advance control; and/or B) it wasn't bad enough to justify a move into deeper government economic control. But the two options were "severe hardship and natural recovery" or "lessened hardship and government control", with the lessened hardship likely prolonged and spread out and the government control possibly term-limited (term-limiting was itself an option--could have just gone straight to full-blown socialism).
Well, the total California debt is half of what they pay annually in income taxes to the US government. Just income taxes. So, you know, it's something where the feds could absorb the debt and still have a net positive after three years.
That statement is a huge logical disconnection that doesn't make sense. You gave zero numbers but a logical statement with no substantiation; I'll make up numbers to show that statement could indeed be false. Let's say that California pays, oh, $300 billion in income taxes and is $150 billion in debt. Now let's say California is in debt because they're running in the red (well, that's how you get into debt). California imports both power and water. They need to run state unemployment. They need to run education. Maintain highways. State administration. All that tallies up to slightly over, say, $50bn; but then California takes 15% in taxes and that's slightly less than $50Bn.
Cali goes bankrupt because they can't pay down $150Bn. The state is bankrupt: it can't take loans. It can't afford to pay unemployment, import power, something. Things are cut, bigger rolling black-outs. The Federal Government takes $1,000Bn in taxes, now $850Bn--that's like 15%, that's big since they spend $1,200Bn every year and now they're racking up debt FAST. But of course since unemployment in Cali isn't being paid, the Fed takes less in taxes. Damage to business interests in California slow business activity--the costs add up, the businesses pay less in taxes by taking less income and taking bigger deductions. That means even less income. Inter-state commerce is affected, so businesses in nearby states and far-off states that trade with California have more minor issues. Shipping becomes a problem. California hasn't fallen off the face of the earth, but things have become difficult.
Oops. Logic.
So, two questions: Isn't that a sign that we might be doing it wrong.
Every civilized, educated person also knows that fire is required for light. Does that mean Edison was doing it wrong?
I could start listing fallacies but it's a compound. Basic one is false dilemma: you're assuming either socialized healthcare or privatized healthcare is "correct" or "better," but really it's in implementation.
Second, all you're doing is pushing the problem down one level. What happens once the 50th state passes a healthcare law you don't like: counties should be independent!
But we have 50 healthcare systems where one is better than another, and the states can more easily adjust their healthcare systems to eliminate and avoid deficiencies and to utilize better strategies as they experiment to correct their problems or recognize useful implementations in the other states. Imagine the US--all of it, the Federal government--acting like France right after the French Revolution. It'd be insane.
So instead of dictatorship by local government possibly abused to censor unfavorable political ideals, they have dictatorship by the International courts possibly abused to censor unfavorable political ideals? (Yeah, okay, child pornography IS an unfavorable political ideal; but I mean things other than stated, under the guise of being related to what is stated in some way.)
Actually back in the day you had to have a passport to move from state to state. There was a federal government, but they didn't surmise that you should be able to enter Virginia just because you were in Maryland.
Variation is the problem. Texas didn't get any help from the Federal Government in the 80s; they got money from taxpayers in various states. Instead of a few tens of millions of people in Texas having a bad time, hundreds of millions of people in the US had a bad time. What will the modern day US do if California goes bankrupt? Karl Marx had an idea about that... if you bring down an economy hard enough, it's unlivable; the only way to 'save' it is to move to total communism. Well if California goes bankrupt, the US Federal Government can't help much, but probably will try anyway; the strain on the US economy will collapse it, and then what? We all get to live in an economic disaster like the Great Depression (it could get worse, but GD was pretty bad) or we can demand the Federal Government fix it--which is done by instating communism.
We're coupled together like that. So is Europe.
Also if you move to Germany you get Germancare. If you move to Canada you get Canadacare. The US was one of the last places with a private healthcare system that's not a third world country, and instead of fixing the brokenness that makes certain people [liberals] mistakenly believe that private healthcare simply doesn't work (rather than holding to a belief that healthcare is simply an 'essential service' that the state should provide--a philosophical point that's neither technically correct nor incorrect), the US got insurance regulations to hobble poor people into the broken healthcare system.
The US. All of it. Not several states, not one or two, not all but one hold-out. All of it. They got it wrong and they got it wrong across the whole god damn country; at least if all 50 states implemented healthcare systems they'd have the opportunity to do different things, and if one sucked you could move to the next state or that state could rewrite its healthcare laws. Or you could move to Germany or Canada or whatever. Or you could move to whatever US state has all the people who want simple private healthcare flocking to it, and wait for the public healthcare law to be repealed.
so like uint8_t a = 255 + 1 could do something really fucking strange, I should be using uint8_t a = (255 + 1) % 256 and it'll optimize out the % because it knows about overflow in my CPU and I basically told it I want that kind of thing to happen?
Possibly that it's slow as shit. There are a lot of single and multi string functions to test things. An incremental parser would be better closer to brute force or maybe read and partial hash, something that does a lot of work pretty much but it's quick work. It may be 40 times slower than a reverse, indexed search like Boyer-moore, but it's still like 20 microseconds so who gives a shit?
Then again, 40 times slower when performing a bulk job means a 5 minute job is a 3 hour 20 minute job. Works for clicky-clicky-clicky on the keyboard where you can tap 10 or 12 keys per second, not so great when you're bulk processing and expected to do this thousands of times per second and can only do it hundreds.
Could you imagine trying to pass the DMCA if the American Federal Government had been abolished in 1995? They'd have to get a treatise with 50 individual states. THEN they'd have to get all 50 states to bother enforcing it, and some of them would sign the treaty and just not have the economic resources to enforce it. Then, if they sent their own enforcers, they'd be invaders and start a war--and probably get hanged.
If any state seceded--if all 50 states dissolved the union--a lot of the framework of this country would vanish. Most of it deals with allowing a one-stop shop for government control of the citizenry--incorporation clause (meaning federal government rules apply to the states--dubious, but it's the argument the courts use to claim that the Establishment Clause applies to states instead of just Congress as stated IN the establishment clause), commerce clause (meaning federal government can do anything to anyone who does anything that happens in other states too--farmers for example are subject to interstate commerce rules even if they exclusively grow food for their own consumption, much less just sale within their state, because food is produced in other states and if you buy food from a local farmer you reduce inter-state commerce demands and thus that farmer is engaging in inter-state commerce), and so on.
The foundations of the DEA, the ATF, copyright law, patents, would all vanish overnight. The TSA would cease to exist. The purchase of senators would... well it'd be like if we erased the 17th amendment, suddenly businesses would have to buy off 50 individual states wholesale instead of paying off specific legislators so they could fund their campaign and buy off the public by proxy. If your state became an Orwellian shithole, you could move to one of the other 49--you'd have to apply for citizenship of course. Everyone would have a passport. Federal Express would carry standard post.
The RIAA would dissolve immediately. All of its executive board would be found in various places either in back alleys, in basements, or in party halls, overdosed to death on coke, or bleeding from a head with a revolver in hand, or hanging from their own belts. One or two might simply jump from the Space Needle.
A virus is made up of a protein shell containing RNA or DNA. This virus is enveloped in cell membrane and contains RNA transcriptase to generate DNA from RNA (meaning retrovirus). The virus latches to a beta T4 cell and injects RNA+transcriptase, which transcripts DNA and then inserts it into the DNA, which produces RNA to build new viruses. These viruses are packaged in a protein shell and then budded--they push against the cell wall until a lipoprotein envelope wraps around them (cell wall material), then bud off without destroying the cell (most viruses pile up until the cell ruptures from filling itself with viruses).
Damaging or removing the RNA or DNA strand in any virus will kill it. It is then simply a protein envelope.
This is what I'm talking about. I didn't sentence you to death, but I did exile you to a desert where water is only present once every hundred years.
This is why a parliament is better. Represent based on the political party leanings of the people. Still wrong, but allows routine vast political shifts.
Dissolving the union would make us not behave like the Roman Empire, the French Empire, the USSR, or the European Union--that is, an administrative and economic disaster.
Our multi-level government is a complicated, expensive mess. Our monolithic currency ensures that a good, well-functioning economy in one state is disadvantaged by another big state failing hard (i.e. California). Basically we have the same problem as Europe: if Greece falls, the Euro loses value, which will push Italy and Spain over the edge, which will further distort the value of the Euro, which will crash the economies of all the wealthy and successful states of the EU.
As a single, monolithic government, we're faced with such overreach as illegal marijuana everywhere--the states that legalize it get raided periodically by the Federal Government--or socialized healthcare, socialized retirement (we could discuss the economics of retirement all day; it's not a simple topic), mass curtailing of basic human rights (TSA, PATRIOT, etc), and so on. If you don't like Obamacare, you can't just move to Vermont or Wisconsin. If you don't like gay marriage, you could get the Federal Government to pass a law legally not recognizing it--if the conservative center of the country becomes active enough for 2 years, they could throw up new Senators and Representatives and have a federal ban on adoption without a recognized opposite-sex marriage in good IRS standing ("Healthy Family Act", proscribing a functional actual family for raising children if you want to adopt--an actual family has a mother AND a father), and any gay couples trying to adopt could be fined, they could be jailed for filing an unrecognized union as "married" with the federal IRS, etc, and you couldn't just move to California where they're faggot-friendly because the Big Government doesn't like faggots and will find you and put you in pound-my-faggot-ass prison to preserve the sanctity of God's pure earth. Texas did it; we had a Texan President that tried to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage; what if a Texas senator convinced the union to implement a constitutional law against gay buttfucking, carrying prison time?
The same thing is wrong with big continental or whole-world governments that's wrong with super-monopolies.
A system of government which creates. Our constitution dictates that the plurality wins. That means if you have 25% of the vote and there's 25 other players with 4% of the vote each, YOU WIN even though 75% of the country hates you. That means that if we stay homogeneously distributed, the country cannot reflect political power: unless all the libertarians move to their own state, they won't get any representation in government.
Because of this, a two-majority system is inevitably created. Once there's more support for two parties than the third parties, the third parties are no longer reflected. We have one or two independents by luck, yet Gary Johnson (Libertarian) has over 5% of the popular vote in this country NOW and we won't get any Libertarian party seats. By rights there should be 5 senate seats for the Libertarian, maybe 1-2 for the Greens (did that woman get enough votes to hit 1%?), and the rest Democrat/Republican to represent the country. Or some such thing.
Further, many people won't vote for a third party because a third party cannot WIN. That means polling representation is incorrect. People won't vote for a Libertarian, a Green, or a Socialist because these people don't win elections and so they would be "throwing their vote away." They happen to be right: If 20% of the vote goes in one direction for the President, for the local governor, for the house, the senate, etc, in EVERY SINGLE ELECTION across the country, someone else wins. A lot of Democrats are elected to the house and senate with 60%-80% of the vote, with 20%-40% going to the Republicans. The opposite happens as well. It could line up; often the balance is shifted such that it no longer represents the actual distribution of political views of the population, and in some occasions the balance of power (i.e. the majority vote or lack thereof) is shifted.
Incorrect representation. Our political system guarantees that significant minority parties will have difficulty gaining traction even with sizable support, and that a scattered but large will-of-the-people will simply disappear and fail representation. This makes third parties uninteresting to most, solidifying us on a two-party system without codifying it in law.
It's hopless here, but I'm voting for Gary Johnson anyway. I just want to see a black mark on the paper, a margin that says "OBAMA WINS!!" with barely over a third of the nation behind him. Maybe one day we'll see stats that make people think: maybe these two assholes aren't our only option. Maybe one day we'll stop worshipping the constitution, burn it, and become 50 separate countries with our own currency and economic robustness, and let Europe take over the one-big-currency-one-big-problem market. Maybe we'll burn it and rewrite it with a parliament so if 10% of us vote for Libertarians or Greens or Nazis then we have to fill in 10% of the Senate and House with Libertarians or Greens or Nazis. Maybe we can get a pluralist presidency where if you don't have 50% we eliminate all until the combined votes bring the lowest to above the second place, and then try again until it's 1 on 1.
Our constitution dictates a system of government which creates a system by which we believe we only have two options (look how old the Republicans and Democrats are). The only way is to rewrite it. Then the people can chose.
77 years at $65,000/year. You can buy a house and a car in cash and avoid paying a huge chunk in interest. You may be able to avoid paying taxes on it since it's an asset changing hands, not sure, kind of doubt it (the business liquidating would work this way, but a CEO getting cash monies is going to pay income at around 30% just like everyone else). You could ask them to payroll you at and disburse a portion of the money into 401(k) at the maximum contribution per year until the account balance is enough for after you're retirement age, with the rest being a business transaction dispersal (not salary, so you don't pay things like social security)--that way you can later roll it into a private IRA, and when you're older and spending less you can take it from the IRA and pay in the lower tax bracket (pay less in taxes).
Slashdot Mirror
It looks like Samsung passed their costs for the $1Billion judgment along to the consumer, and that consumer is Apple.
One direction like one exact angle of incidence. Multiple cloaks won't help because you need an infinite number of them, or at least you need them per angle based on the bandwidth of microwave and the radius of the cloak--meaning a lot. Too much. It's a huge leap from "We've gotten elevators to work by using a rope and pully and waterwheel" to "soon we'll be able to lift things into space by anti-gravity".
if there are wiser beings watching us, waiting for us to demonstrate some semblance of social maturity, wouldn't such an act demonstrate our good intentions? Our growing maturity and responsibility? All interesting ideas.
Wot, noticing dolphins and birds are kind of smart and so genetically modifying them to make them people? Any wiser beings would think we're functionally retarded as a species.
I just bought a 1200sqft house with basement and if I weren't eternally single (never dated) I'd raise kids in that house. It's small but it's livable.
Look, I'm not a call-of-duty guy or whatever, medal of honor, apparently medal of buttsex on submarines this time around, whatever. But you have to admit that this sort of thing is good, solid cultural advancement. I mean, warfare isn't cultural advancement; access to history is, knowledge in all its forms is. Maybe they slipped some state secrets--I suspect there were implications, less revelation of direct classified data, stuff that hints too close to home. That's bad. But this whole "We should be silent and proud!' thing is stupid. Being an over-egotistical gaudy asshole is one thing, but this... this is a contribution to society. It has value.
Actually the development of iPod/iTunes is where life starts. We could have aborted AAPL anywhere before that and Jobs would have just wound up teaming up with Woz to start a brand new company, launch the iPod and iTunes, and it would have turned out just the same. Companies don't burst into life at inception; they have to gestate first.
Stupid pedantic point, but it is better than the original state when people were killed just cause. But, in case you didn't notice, only one western country tried outlawing alcohol, and it lasted like 15 years. Then it was undone because it was a stupid idea.
You just can't admit that people doing something new doesn't make the new thing better or the old thing worse, can you?
And notice how stonings, etc. don't happen anymore in western countries. In fact, you brought that up just because it's shocking and we don't do it anymore.
It went: Stone Everyone->Stone people over little things->Stone people over alcohol->Stone no-one
That's because a large portion of the planet has moved onto decapitation. It's also, more importantly, not true. Even the crucifiction thing in Egypt was just an elaborate hoax; stoning is the modern method.
Yeah, but Edison didn't. I'm not saying that people weren't wrong about fire, I'm saying Edison didn't prove them wrong.
Moving goalpost.
Maybe a revolutionary way of using market forces would work. So... what would that revolutionary way be?
You've been arguing that this simply isn't the case, rather than asking the important question. I'll give an answer after a quick non-sequitur...
And seriously, you just seem to move the goal-posts around like crazy.
Nah, I'm just disorganized. Argumentation is about sounding smart by looking organized and being well-spoken; I've never been organized.and I elucidate poorly.
Anyway to answer the above, I've been bouncing crap around in my head but haven't found an opportune time to just dump this: scropion vaccine. In Mexico, $250 at pharmacy. In the US, $3750 to the distributor, $3950 to the hospital, and $35,000 per dose to the patient. $50,000/year HIV maintenance drugs are like $200/year in Africa for the same exact shit from the same company. Open heart surgery--supplies, electricity, equipment, salaries--costs about $5000, but the bill is closer to a quarter million.
Some regulations are needed. Some regulations are very bad and wrong. In the US we tend to get the regulations that increase barrier to entry and destroy small business, while either slightly irritating or outright helping large, hostile businesses. Republicans scream regulation is bad, Democrats scream regulation is good, nobody wants to talk about what KIND of regulation. Obamacare is one kind and, in fact, you and I have both agreed that it's the wrong kind--the dispute is simply over WHY it's the wrong kind.
All you need to do is provide health care for all - poor and those with preexisting conditions. You can go single-payer. You can have private companies compete.
Pre-existing conditions creates the problem that we have to assume the pre-existing conditions in the risk pool, making healthcare much more expensive--insurance is about risk balance, and really lopping off the low hanging fruit. It's not about wealth redistribution. This becomes an issue even when you publicly fund everyone's insurance--the poor people in the system increase the risk, so premiums must increase to compensate. Sec, I'll get to that.
The reason poor people increase risk--and this is important, so pay attention and save forming counter-arguments for a second read-through--is because they get sick more. Poor people are culturally different; they're our neighbors, our sons and daughters, all that jazz, but they're different. They're poor, and a poor life requires different behaviors to survive. Rich and middle class people are EXTREMELY extracted; the middle class and the rich think the poor are all thieves and criminals--plenty are-
Everyone started with a system like ours. Then, slowly, one by one, they converted over to the system.
Everyone started as godless shitbags banging rocks together in the street, but then they found religion. Some of them (a lot of them) found religion like Judaism or Islam, where we stone people to death or behead them for minor things. Alcohol wasn't islam-illegal until some time in the 1400s.
Progress: we now execute people for consuming whiskey. This is better.
Also, people weren't crazy wrong. Extreme heat was required. Edison discovered that a proper filament being heated, and in an oxygen-free environment, could provide light without catching fire. It was a brilliant evolution of thought. Much like moving to a state-run health care system.
False, we have a lot of cool lights. I have a nightlight that emits a glowing green light but no heat. LEDs emit less heat. CFLs vaporize mercury still; CRTs used phosphorus and electron beams, which involved no actual fire.
Energy was required and the lowest state of energy tends to be heat--typically when something absorbs light, movement, etc, the energy is converted to heat--so all loss makes things warm. That is not the same thing as fire.
You false-equivalate the progression to electric lights with the progression to a state-run healthcare system as both being advancements. It's doubly-wrong since gas lighting is better than electric lighting in some ways--particularly health (sleep cycle) and particularly for the production of warmth in the winter as a bi-product--and since gas lighting can be made safe just as electric lighting can.
It is impossible for all other things to be equal by definition. Obamacare is a chain of insurance regulation laws and other such shit, which relies substantially on a privatized healthcare system but gives guarantees that everyone will be covered--that means the robber barons have an easier time overcharging and nice, shiny, friendly rules to maximize their abuse of. As you fix these problems, you extend more government control out until you completely eliminate any resemblance of the two systems. And it could end up very wrong.
But that's the case under the new federal regulations. It just sets some ground rules (which you don't seem offended by, because you ignored them when I brought them up), and some goals. Each state is encouraged to "do whatever" to meet those goals.
Then in my state "Whatever" equates to "do nothing" and we rely on the same system, nobody uninsured pays the mandatory penalty for not carrying insurance, insurance companies running in Maryland don't have to follow the Federal regulations, and healthcare providers are similarly unaffected.
They cannot opt out.
Then they can't do whatever.
Why do you think the early media reports were landslide for Romney? Why do you think it stayed so tense? Why do you think states were called before they were reporting, or that they were called for Romney at 74% reporting with 60% going to Obama? 97% chance of Obama victory. Obama's gonna win, Obama's winning, cool. Let's put in the Harry Potter DVDs and make some popcorn.
Don't watch Harry Potter, you faggots! Watch MSNBC and CSPAN so we can get ratings! Hey! HEY! HEY, CHECK IT PEOPLE, ROMNEY IS WINNING!
Do you honestly think that there is a communist plot? Or that it would still harkin back to 100+ year old tactics.
Well, that's one way to look at it. There are other ways to look at it, but they essentially mean the same thing minus intent. Think like FDR's reaction to The Great Depression, or Obama's reaction to the collapse of the banks and auto industry. Government money, government plans, government driving the economy--that's socialism leading into communism. In this case one or both of two things happened: A) the government lacked desire to move into communism, and so didn't advance control; and/or B) it wasn't bad enough to justify a move into deeper government economic control. But the two options were "severe hardship and natural recovery" or "lessened hardship and government control", with the lessened hardship likely prolonged and spread out and the government control possibly term-limited (term-limiting was itself an option--could have just gone straight to full-blown socialism).
Well, the total California debt is half of what they pay annually in income taxes to the US government. Just income taxes. So, you know, it's something where the feds could absorb the debt and still have a net positive after three years.
That statement is a huge logical disconnection that doesn't make sense. You gave zero numbers but a logical statement with no substantiation; I'll make up numbers to show that statement could indeed be false. Let's say that California pays, oh, $300 billion in income taxes and is $150 billion in debt. Now let's say California is in debt because they're running in the red (well, that's how you get into debt). California imports both power and water. They need to run state unemployment. They need to run education. Maintain highways. State administration. All that tallies up to slightly over, say, $50bn; but then California takes 15% in taxes and that's slightly less than $50Bn.
Cali goes bankrupt because they can't pay down $150Bn. The state is bankrupt: it can't take loans. It can't afford to pay unemployment, import power, something. Things are cut, bigger rolling black-outs. The Federal Government takes $1,000Bn in taxes, now $850Bn--that's like 15%, that's big since they spend $1,200Bn every year and now they're racking up debt FAST. But of course since unemployment in Cali isn't being paid, the Fed takes less in taxes. Damage to business interests in California slow business activity--the costs add up, the businesses pay less in taxes by taking less income and taking bigger deductions. That means even less income. Inter-state commerce is affected, so businesses in nearby states and far-off states that trade with California have more minor issues. Shipping becomes a problem. California hasn't fallen off the face of the earth, but things have become difficult.
Oops. Logic.
So, two questions: Isn't that a sign that we might be doing it wrong.
Every civilized, educated person also knows that fire is required for light. Does that mean Edison was doing it wrong?
I could start listing fallacies but it's a compound. Basic one is false dilemma: you're assuming either socialized healthcare or privatized healthcare is "correct" or "better," but really it's in implementation.
Second, all you're doing is pushing the problem down one level. What happens once the 50th state passes a healthcare law you don't like: counties should be independent!
But we have 50 healthcare systems where one is better than another, and the states can more easily adjust their healthcare systems to eliminate and avoid deficiencies and to utilize better strategies as they experiment to correct their problems or recognize useful implementations in the other states. Imagine the US--all of it, the Federal government--acting like France right after the French Revolution. It'd be insane.
Als
So instead of dictatorship by local government possibly abused to censor unfavorable political ideals, they have dictatorship by the International courts possibly abused to censor unfavorable political ideals? (Yeah, okay, child pornography IS an unfavorable political ideal; but I mean things other than stated, under the guise of being related to what is stated in some way.)
Actually back in the day you had to have a passport to move from state to state. There was a federal government, but they didn't surmise that you should be able to enter Virginia just because you were in Maryland.
Variation is the problem. Texas didn't get any help from the Federal Government in the 80s; they got money from taxpayers in various states. Instead of a few tens of millions of people in Texas having a bad time, hundreds of millions of people in the US had a bad time. What will the modern day US do if California goes bankrupt? Karl Marx had an idea about that... if you bring down an economy hard enough, it's unlivable; the only way to 'save' it is to move to total communism. Well if California goes bankrupt, the US Federal Government can't help much, but probably will try anyway; the strain on the US economy will collapse it, and then what? We all get to live in an economic disaster like the Great Depression (it could get worse, but GD was pretty bad) or we can demand the Federal Government fix it--which is done by instating communism.
We're coupled together like that. So is Europe.
Also if you move to Germany you get Germancare. If you move to Canada you get Canadacare. The US was one of the last places with a private healthcare system that's not a third world country, and instead of fixing the brokenness that makes certain people [liberals] mistakenly believe that private healthcare simply doesn't work (rather than holding to a belief that healthcare is simply an 'essential service' that the state should provide--a philosophical point that's neither technically correct nor incorrect), the US got insurance regulations to hobble poor people into the broken healthcare system.
The US. All of it. Not several states, not one or two, not all but one hold-out. All of it. They got it wrong and they got it wrong across the whole god damn country; at least if all 50 states implemented healthcare systems they'd have the opportunity to do different things, and if one sucked you could move to the next state or that state could rewrite its healthcare laws. Or you could move to Germany or Canada or whatever. Or you could move to whatever US state has all the people who want simple private healthcare flocking to it, and wait for the public healthcare law to be repealed.
The US is too big to be one empire.
Cousin? I thought they were having sex.
Oh wait. Yeah, most BSD folks I meet seem to be Alabaman or Californian...
so like uint8_t a = 255 + 1 could do something really fucking strange, I should be using uint8_t a = (255 + 1) % 256 and it'll optimize out the % because it knows about overflow in my CPU and I basically told it I want that kind of thing to happen?
Possibly that it's slow as shit. There are a lot of single and multi string functions to test things. An incremental parser would be better closer to brute force or maybe read and partial hash, something that does a lot of work pretty much but it's quick work. It may be 40 times slower than a reverse, indexed search like Boyer-moore, but it's still like 20 microseconds so who gives a shit?
Then again, 40 times slower when performing a bulk job means a 5 minute job is a 3 hour 20 minute job. Works for clicky-clicky-clicky on the keyboard where you can tap 10 or 12 keys per second, not so great when you're bulk processing and expected to do this thousands of times per second and can only do it hundreds.
Could you imagine trying to pass the DMCA if the American Federal Government had been abolished in 1995? They'd have to get a treatise with 50 individual states. THEN they'd have to get all 50 states to bother enforcing it, and some of them would sign the treaty and just not have the economic resources to enforce it. Then, if they sent their own enforcers, they'd be invaders and start a war--and probably get hanged.
If any state seceded--if all 50 states dissolved the union--a lot of the framework of this country would vanish. Most of it deals with allowing a one-stop shop for government control of the citizenry--incorporation clause (meaning federal government rules apply to the states--dubious, but it's the argument the courts use to claim that the Establishment Clause applies to states instead of just Congress as stated IN the establishment clause), commerce clause (meaning federal government can do anything to anyone who does anything that happens in other states too--farmers for example are subject to interstate commerce rules even if they exclusively grow food for their own consumption, much less just sale within their state, because food is produced in other states and if you buy food from a local farmer you reduce inter-state commerce demands and thus that farmer is engaging in inter-state commerce), and so on.
The foundations of the DEA, the ATF, copyright law, patents, would all vanish overnight. The TSA would cease to exist. The purchase of senators would ... well it'd be like if we erased the 17th amendment, suddenly businesses would have to buy off 50 individual states wholesale instead of paying off specific legislators so they could fund their campaign and buy off the public by proxy. If your state became an Orwellian shithole, you could move to one of the other 49--you'd have to apply for citizenship of course. Everyone would have a passport. Federal Express would carry standard post.
The RIAA would dissolve immediately. All of its executive board would be found in various places either in back alleys, in basements, or in party halls, overdosed to death on coke, or bleeding from a head with a revolver in hand, or hanging from their own belts. One or two might simply jump from the Space Needle.
A virus is made up of a protein shell containing RNA or DNA. This virus is enveloped in cell membrane and contains RNA transcriptase to generate DNA from RNA (meaning retrovirus). The virus latches to a beta T4 cell and injects RNA+transcriptase, which transcripts DNA and then inserts it into the DNA, which produces RNA to build new viruses. These viruses are packaged in a protein shell and then budded--they push against the cell wall until a lipoprotein envelope wraps around them (cell wall material), then bud off without destroying the cell (most viruses pile up until the cell ruptures from filling itself with viruses).
Damaging or removing the RNA or DNA strand in any virus will kill it. It is then simply a protein envelope.
Yeah, the Federal Government declared war because it's a tyrannical empire.
This is what I'm talking about. I didn't sentence you to death, but I did exile you to a desert where water is only present once every hundred years.
This is why a parliament is better. Represent based on the political party leanings of the people. Still wrong, but allows routine vast political shifts.
check out /tmp and also if you did execute a shell command the above would blow the machine out, chroot jail or not :)
Dissolving the union would make us not behave like the Roman Empire, the French Empire, the USSR, or the European Union--that is, an administrative and economic disaster.
Our multi-level government is a complicated, expensive mess. Our monolithic currency ensures that a good, well-functioning economy in one state is disadvantaged by another big state failing hard (i.e. California). Basically we have the same problem as Europe: if Greece falls, the Euro loses value, which will push Italy and Spain over the edge, which will further distort the value of the Euro, which will crash the economies of all the wealthy and successful states of the EU.
As a single, monolithic government, we're faced with such overreach as illegal marijuana everywhere--the states that legalize it get raided periodically by the Federal Government--or socialized healthcare, socialized retirement (we could discuss the economics of retirement all day; it's not a simple topic), mass curtailing of basic human rights (TSA, PATRIOT, etc), and so on. If you don't like Obamacare, you can't just move to Vermont or Wisconsin. If you don't like gay marriage, you could get the Federal Government to pass a law legally not recognizing it--if the conservative center of the country becomes active enough for 2 years, they could throw up new Senators and Representatives and have a federal ban on adoption without a recognized opposite-sex marriage in good IRS standing ("Healthy Family Act", proscribing a functional actual family for raising children if you want to adopt--an actual family has a mother AND a father), and any gay couples trying to adopt could be fined, they could be jailed for filing an unrecognized union as "married" with the federal IRS, etc, and you couldn't just move to California where they're faggot-friendly because the Big Government doesn't like faggots and will find you and put you in pound-my-faggot-ass prison to preserve the sanctity of God's pure earth. Texas did it; we had a Texan President that tried to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage; what if a Texas senator convinced the union to implement a constitutional law against gay buttfucking, carrying prison time?
The same thing is wrong with big continental or whole-world governments that's wrong with super-monopolies.
A system of government which creates. Our constitution dictates that the plurality wins. That means if you have 25% of the vote and there's 25 other players with 4% of the vote each, YOU WIN even though 75% of the country hates you. That means that if we stay homogeneously distributed, the country cannot reflect political power: unless all the libertarians move to their own state, they won't get any representation in government.
Because of this, a two-majority system is inevitably created. Once there's more support for two parties than the third parties, the third parties are no longer reflected. We have one or two independents by luck, yet Gary Johnson (Libertarian) has over 5% of the popular vote in this country NOW and we won't get any Libertarian party seats. By rights there should be 5 senate seats for the Libertarian, maybe 1-2 for the Greens (did that woman get enough votes to hit 1%?), and the rest Democrat/Republican to represent the country. Or some such thing.
Further, many people won't vote for a third party because a third party cannot WIN. That means polling representation is incorrect. People won't vote for a Libertarian, a Green, or a Socialist because these people don't win elections and so they would be "throwing their vote away." They happen to be right: If 20% of the vote goes in one direction for the President, for the local governor, for the house, the senate, etc, in EVERY SINGLE ELECTION across the country, someone else wins. A lot of Democrats are elected to the house and senate with 60%-80% of the vote, with 20%-40% going to the Republicans. The opposite happens as well. It could line up; often the balance is shifted such that it no longer represents the actual distribution of political views of the population, and in some occasions the balance of power (i.e. the majority vote or lack thereof) is shifted.
Incorrect representation. Our political system guarantees that significant minority parties will have difficulty gaining traction even with sizable support, and that a scattered but large will-of-the-people will simply disappear and fail representation. This makes third parties uninteresting to most, solidifying us on a two-party system without codifying it in law.
Can't manage to get it to execute shell stuff, trying to make vm :read !:(){ :|:; }
It's hopless here, but I'm voting for Gary Johnson anyway. I just want to see a black mark on the paper, a margin that says "OBAMA WINS!!" with barely over a third of the nation behind him. Maybe one day we'll see stats that make people think: maybe these two assholes aren't our only option. Maybe one day we'll stop worshipping the constitution, burn it, and become 50 separate countries with our own currency and economic robustness, and let Europe take over the one-big-currency-one-big-problem market. Maybe we'll burn it and rewrite it with a parliament so if 10% of us vote for Libertarians or Greens or Nazis then we have to fill in 10% of the Senate and House with Libertarians or Greens or Nazis. Maybe we can get a pluralist presidency where if you don't have 50% we eliminate all until the combined votes bring the lowest to above the second place, and then try again until it's 1 on 1.
Our constitution dictates a system of government which creates a system by which we believe we only have two options (look how old the Republicans and Democrats are). The only way is to rewrite it. Then the people can chose.
77 years at $65,000/year. You can buy a house and a car in cash and avoid paying a huge chunk in interest. You may be able to avoid paying taxes on it since it's an asset changing hands, not sure, kind of doubt it (the business liquidating would work this way, but a CEO getting cash monies is going to pay income at around 30% just like everyone else). You could ask them to payroll you at and disburse a portion of the money into 401(k) at the maximum contribution per year until the account balance is enough for after you're retirement age, with the rest being a business transaction dispersal (not salary, so you don't pay things like social security)--that way you can later roll it into a private IRA, and when you're older and spending less you can take it from the IRA and pay in the lower tax bracket (pay less in taxes).