ICs are like the easiest fucking thing to make an auto-fab for. The fact that they don't exist is due to tight tolerances--quality of manufacturing and maintenance needs are so high it's not feasible outside an industrial situation.
This wasn't a proof argument, it was a consequences of trying to invade Switzerland argument. The original argument was an insinuation that war is not necessary for Switzerland; in truth, Switzerland doesn't have to worry about wars because Switzerland is highly militarized. In other words: Switzerland has seen that a war is the well and good choice in response to an invasion, and has made itself very effective in that response. If Switzerland had been a state of non-violence and peace and diplomacy for its entire existence, with no guns and no weapons and no martial training at all, it would have been overrun long ago and taken for slaves and resources.
Quit playing with undistributed middle arguments.
In America it's quite simple: there are cats and there are mice. Mice can't hurt cats; mice are afraid of cats. Cats toy with mice and kill them as they please; other mice do not attack the cats. In many places in America, people will stand around and not make a move to help someone being beaten to death because they fear for themselves... so nobody is afraid to rape and mug people.
Criminals with guns are playing a risk game: the gun makes them a kind of god, with unlimited powers and the ability to command men to their bidding; but if they're arrested, the gun is a huge liability and ends in a MUCH harsher sentence. Many criminals stick to fists and knives because everyone's a pussy anyway and nobody will stand up for anyone else. Harsh penalties for illegal possession or illegal use of a gun are good; I'm not so sure eliminating legal guns is an effective strategy (worked for drugs, right?) versus regulating legal gun ownership in an effective way.
Of course, I've little interest in firearms. If you taught every individual Judo and you told them that they should take up for those who can't take up for themselves (liberal philosophy seems to only like that concept when money is involved), what would you have? A bunch of criminals who knew Judo, that's what. Now, tell me who wants to rape a girl who knows Judo, win the ensuing miniature Judo match, and continue the rape with a broken arm? More generally, who wants to pull a knife in an alleyway to mug some guy who knows Judo, and risk 6 other guys who know Judo noticing this while passing by? Do you want to fight 6 guys who know Judo? I sure don't.
I wouldn't go for a unilateral strategy--or even a weapons-free one. I want to instill a sense of honor and god damn responsibility for others into the people of this country. I'm not stupid enough to send them all out to scream and flail at each other; self defense training is a good thing. Everyone should learn some basic hand-to-hand martial arts--something soft (Judo, Aikido, Pentjak Silat), something hard (Muy Thai kickboxing), not necessarily mandatory that everyone study the same thing--but also should be allowed to pursue personal interests. That can mean honing their skills with their bodies (fists, legs, etc) or taking up a weapon (sword/bokken, three sectional staff, jo, etc).
I feel that this flexibility allows people to become comfortable with a part of themselves--for example, I hate knives and will reject a knife in favor of my bare hands, but I instantly found an affinity for the Jo and could wield it somewhat skillfully, moreso than anything I'd actually practiced with. I dislike knives because they're too limiting... I can do a lot of non-leathal damage and bruising with a jo, but knives are exclusively for cuts and gnashes and crippling and fatal blood loss.
That comfort, the confidence in their ability to competently defend themselves, a feeling of community with other people who will come to your aid and who you feel a responsibility for if they require aid, and the ever present fear of immediate and unavoidable retribution from society (as in everyone, not just the police that you're so sure won't ever catch you) for violating the very base rule of society (that is: a society must
I liked the tax cut because, 6 years later, I decided to play with the numbers and I found that, a year and a half later, the GDP (not GNP; GDP is in adjusted dollars) went up 20%. That means the nation as a whole got wealthier. The federal income dropped--by almost 0%, just a bit more than that.
These tax cuts happened in 2001 and 2003. It looks like in the surrounding years (up to 2006), the rich got somewhat richer (from $113,000/year average for those over $70,000/year to $126,000/year average). It looks like the average for each group below that didn't go up; however, the proportion of people in the lowest income groups shrunk and the proportion of people in higher income groups grew. In other words, rich got richer; poor got richer. Probably a result of more jobs opening up.
At the moment, I dislike this analysis because it's fuzzed over by a war occurring at the same time; war has strange effects, often being mistaken for making the economy better while it's making it worse.
Switzerland is QUITE prepared for war, and when somebody invades Switzerland there will be a VERY short and VERY efficient war. If someone THREATENS to carpet bomb Switzerland, I don't imagine they'll hesitate long to mobilize--not longer than it takes to make it quite clear that the pompous ass threatening them will either disarm or be burned to the ground.
Nobody has tried because nobody sees any end result beyond having their ass handed to them.
Barrack Obama is going to take "Worst President," Bush did pretty good until he started a war. War is a necessary thing, but expensive and economically crippling; warfare must be precise, effective, efficient, and carefully considered. This was not a war we needed to fight--at least not so viciously. It should have been easier to pull off our global political goals without bumbling around like retards..
Still, I'm looking at these asses running our country and what do we get? Republicans raving about crazy vicious communist liberals, democrats trying to look more professional while lobbing a constant stream of low-brow attacks at conservatives. All of you shut the fuck up and get some work done.
Insurance is a not-for-profit. You can keep 5% and keep your NFP benefits; the more money you pass, the more money you keep. A college that graduates 10 million students per year is going to walk away with a hell of a lot more money than a college that graduates 10 thousand... about 1,000 times more. The sheer volume of revenue is the limiter for profit.
You've jumped around quite a bit here, so I'll have to jump around with my responses.
Nurses aren't apprentice doctors. They are distinct, but complementary, fields.
Just about everyone who goes to medical school works as a nurse for some time. It is related--it gives them caregiver skills--and they function as an aide to a doctor. Nurses largely make sure people are comfortable, have clean sheets, etc.; but they also notice when someone is sick, make sure they're following prescribed medication during their stay (often administering things like pain killers or insulin as prescribed), make sure they're getting clean and getting any exercise they're supposed to be getting, and take any notes on anything important for the doctor to know about. They also have to get the doctor in the event of an emergency.
Apprenticing as a doctor is a completely different thing; but you will start out your medical career as a nurse. This is valuable experience.
Master's Degrees are even worse than Bachelor's Degrees, though. It's well-known that the entire college system is a huge money-making scheme, and quality has gone down in favor of appealing to more students and drawing more money. Lawyers go to law school, doctors go to med school, often after they have a bachelor's or master's in their field: it's a separate school.
College is for engineers. Learn about math, sciences, physics, engineering, the like. But colleges are trying to push silly stuff like IT management and things that require technical skill sets that are constantly changing and not based on a whole hell of a lot of basic theory. Look at programming degrees: programmers know way too little about how to program and way too much about yesterday's programming languages and today's buzzwords. Programmers learned C++ and Java but had no clue how to deal with raw C, and many of them didn't have the programming background to understand a new language; then.NET happened, and it's like, oh crap, what is this?
Lawyers need to apprentice with a legal professional--I know, I've seen it. Culinary chefs need to apprentice for a while, too. Doctors apprentice--as nurses, then as apprentice doctors. Programmers don't apprentice; managers don't apprentice; Engineers don't apprentice. I don't understand this.
Then on top of it you have dance students and students playing musical instruments, and what do they do? Learn the history of art, learn how to paint, learn about math and science. Why? Why do I need this to be a tuba player?... why the hell am I taking a bachelor's in tuba?
And then on top of it, $10 textbooks of constantly decreasing quality released on shelf for $200 with a new revision every 4 months so you have to buy new. WTF?
Put some quality into the education and I'll put some stock into it.
Waste heat. You have a turbine at the top, you have a thermocouple near that that the exhaust runs through, QED. By cooling the exhaust, the thermocouple creates a vacuum, but also weighty air that needs to be pushed; of course it doesn't need to be pushed as far. Totally doable.
Pretty much what I was thinking. I'm a computer/engineering guy but I've been doing philosophy lately and I'm writing a book on economics and finances. That book is turning into an essay because... it's information, not fiction; I keep making revisions and pairing it down into a more concise technical writing piece, though I realize I need an appeal to emotion to not completely bore the reader.
Finances fall between engineering, philosophy, and economics. From an engineering standpoint, I have resources, vague goals, and various costs involved in using those resources: rent versus own, car versus bike versus motorcycle versus a diversified strategy involving all that (and maybe public transit), family versus single living, plans for emergencies and for the future, etc. From a philosophical standpoint, I also have various needs to balance: overconsumption and excess luxury are waste, yet elimination of all luxury is not necessarily spiritually healthy--life should be enrichment, not poverty or gluttony. Of course finances and economics go together implicitly: what costs money, what do you do to save money, what do you do with that money?
You see, even philosophical venues--extolling the virtues of using a bicycle or not wasting labor by overusing their car is a philosophical venue--intertwine with "geek" venues like engineering and economics. Using a motorcycle incurs less fuel costs (half) and purchasing costs ($4000 vs $20000) than a car, but the same maintenance; using a bicycle incurs roughly 1/10 of what a motorcycle incurs, and contributes to physical fitness and health as well. Either of these helps the economic goal of reducing wasted labor and putting additional funds into the economy; and, in varying degrees, the environmental concerns of burning excess fossil fuel (motorcycle is both easier to manufacture and takes less energy to run than a car).
If you're illegally speeding at 60 in a 30mph zone, insurance will typically pay out liability. As well, aggressive driving and the like.... liability means you're at fault.
Gross negligence is different. In the event that your insurer can show that you weren't just irresponsible, but in fact engaged in such unreasonable behavior that it's patently absurd to leave the insurer to pick up the bill, the judge is probably going to want to hear this--and he'll probably look for a damn good reason to grant relief. You will offend the judge by showing up in his court room claiming that the insured was doing 60mph in a 45mph zone and you thus don't want to pay liability; but if the insured was staging a highly illegal street race--not down the back roads or something, but down open city streets, Tokyo Drift style, for a 40 mile circuit from one end of the city to another, through populated areas, at excessively high speeds--he will be very willing to put fort effort to weasel you out of paying for this shit, (hopefully) to the strict extent of the law (so too bad, you might have to cough up anyway).
The core argument here will be that Sony took out an insurance policy and then proceeded to cease to care about the well being of their clients. They became grossly and possibly criminally negligent, under the assumption that all negative effects of this would fall to the insurance company and thus that they paid to be freed of responsibility for their actions. Insurance will argue that Sony's actions were irresponsible, a public danger, and possibly illegal or fraudulent (depending on what security claims they made to the payment card industry, which actually cares about this sort of thing).
They may not have a legal leg to stand on; but they have enough of an argument for a judge to want to hear it. He might rule against it in the end, but he'll allow it to be heard in his court.
Well, they have a valid case. It's going to get heard by a judge, for sure; this isn't some ridiculous "Oh we don't feel like holding up to our contract because it's bad for us today" kind of thing. What happened here is Sony took out insurance and then caused a massive problem leading to a massive claim through unimaginably gross negligence. It's like if you insure a car and then proceed to speed at 180mph and slam into shit... your insurer will go, "Oh HELL no," and try to wiggle out of the claims. Often they have clauses that vaguely let them do so, on a good day; whereas basic neglect and driver failure will get them slapped around because that's what you're insured for.
Basically Sony did the equivalent of buying 100k/300k liability insurance and then organizing a massive illegal street race through a complicated course in the city. Gross, gross negligence. Now their insurers are going, "There is no way in Hell we should have to pay for this!" Sony looks like it didn't even try to secure its networks, just like someone running an Indy 500 on open roads looks like they've bought car insurance to avoid having to care about all the damage they know's going to eventually happen.
It's tricky, but it's good enough to get you a day in court. If you just show up like "Well we have a contract but we don't wanna pay..." the judge won't even hear your case.
That does not make any sense. The distribution would follow such that there are spectacularly brilliant and spectacularly stupid people, and there are more smart and more dumb people, and there are most around the mean. Any skew comes from the world not being a monoculture, and thus we can assume that any skew indicates a large portion of the population exists in a specific social setting: if 80% of the world is below average, then a LOT of the world lives in countries or localities that supply a social structure conducive to stupidity, or antagonizing to intelligence, or a mixture of both.
If you shop wisely and read and understand the contract
The contract in this case fits on 1 sheet of paper and is in plain language with specifiers--i.e. anything fuzzy they've defined in very straight forward and very inarguable terms.
100% of the RTO payment goes toward the purchase price in this agreement; but if you pass it back, they keep the money. As they rent to high school band students, they usually keep things most of the time, which is extremely lucrative.
You could have used a battery-backed RAM IDE drive (slots into the PCI slot, contains RAM and a battery), but that's only really a good idea for temp space, and most databases won't fully-journal to a separate temporary space. It's a pity, because doing 32 or 64GB on RAM would be a huge performance boost, but way too much to keep in risk of data loss.
I've yet to see a ROHS fail and I've got stuff that's ROHS compliant from ages ago... my TV is from the early 90s and is a bubble tube, and all silver-tin.
You had a defective computer. If your computer was swapping enough to do that in 10 minutes to NAND flash, you were at the point where you clicked a tab in firefox and the whole window sat white for 3-4 minutes while paging. This is where you have 128MB RAM and 2GB swap and you're using 1.8 gigs total, actively.
Actually, I'm looking heavily into rent-to-own for musical instruments in the future. They're expensive, yes; but I can get a good, $1000 Romanian-made violin for $50/mo, and if i hate the violin I'm out $150. If I hate THAT violin, I switch to another, and then when I find a model I enjoy I tell them to exchange my RTO for a brand new one of that model and apply my rental costs.
The RTO place I'm going to basically rents these instruments, so you get something used by a dozen people before, mostly high school kids in band renting for the school year (a $1200 cello goes for one payment of $329 for September-June, or like $20/mo or something month-by-month); but they'll let you trade up and keep your record as long as you continuously rent the same instrument (a violin, flute, guitar... no trading across to abandon violin for cello).
So, $200 for crappy instrument that's actively hard to play, or $500 for a decent entry-level, only to find you could have done much better for $1000. That's how it works. You can get a good Yamaha guitar for $200-$300, but the vast majority of sub-$500 guitars are garbage with horrible intonation and no tuning stability, and sometimes they're such cheap wood that they warp under stress in several months. A Cordoba C5 is a great guitar; the C9 is a fucking awesome guitar for $900 instead of $500, and the $1400 models they sell are notably warmer and richer in tone.
Or you spend $20-$50 a month for 2-3 months, decide you don't like the instrument, give back a very nice instrument you spent $60-$150 on, and go about your way.
RTO apartments and LTO cars can make sense, too (yeah, you can own an apartment), if you enjoy driving (thus you're picky about cars) or you're not interested in debt and you're prone to renting (RTO is better than renting if you're not looking to buy). They can also be idiot-bait.
The maximum surface exposure is what, 6 inches x 4 inches one way, 1/4 inch by 4 inches the other? And the surface is flat. That's 1/24 of the drag, roughly.
It's shiny. If it's shiny you will buy it. Clean water is shiny, and clean water is less likely to be toxic, so shiny things are intrinsically and instinctively valuable because they remind us of life and survival. If you put Brita filtered tap water into two different glasses and give them to women, whichever glass is shinier will inevitably have the best tasting water. Men are less reliable with this, but over a large amount of samples it's still pretty significant, up in the 60-70% range.. 90-95% for women.
The Apple Store is made of polished glass, and everything inside is god damn Jesus.
Slashdot Mirror
ICs are like the easiest fucking thing to make an auto-fab for. The fact that they don't exist is due to tight tolerances--quality of manufacturing and maintenance needs are so high it's not feasible outside an industrial situation.
This wasn't a proof argument, it was a consequences of trying to invade Switzerland argument. The original argument was an insinuation that war is not necessary for Switzerland; in truth, Switzerland doesn't have to worry about wars because Switzerland is highly militarized. In other words: Switzerland has seen that a war is the well and good choice in response to an invasion, and has made itself very effective in that response. If Switzerland had been a state of non-violence and peace and diplomacy for its entire existence, with no guns and no weapons and no martial training at all, it would have been overrun long ago and taken for slaves and resources.
Quit playing with undistributed middle arguments.
In America it's quite simple: there are cats and there are mice. Mice can't hurt cats; mice are afraid of cats. Cats toy with mice and kill them as they please; other mice do not attack the cats. In many places in America, people will stand around and not make a move to help someone being beaten to death because they fear for themselves... so nobody is afraid to rape and mug people.
Criminals with guns are playing a risk game: the gun makes them a kind of god, with unlimited powers and the ability to command men to their bidding; but if they're arrested, the gun is a huge liability and ends in a MUCH harsher sentence. Many criminals stick to fists and knives because everyone's a pussy anyway and nobody will stand up for anyone else. Harsh penalties for illegal possession or illegal use of a gun are good; I'm not so sure eliminating legal guns is an effective strategy (worked for drugs, right?) versus regulating legal gun ownership in an effective way.
Of course, I've little interest in firearms. If you taught every individual Judo and you told them that they should take up for those who can't take up for themselves (liberal philosophy seems to only like that concept when money is involved), what would you have? A bunch of criminals who knew Judo, that's what. Now, tell me who wants to rape a girl who knows Judo, win the ensuing miniature Judo match, and continue the rape with a broken arm? More generally, who wants to pull a knife in an alleyway to mug some guy who knows Judo, and risk 6 other guys who know Judo noticing this while passing by? Do you want to fight 6 guys who know Judo? I sure don't.
I wouldn't go for a unilateral strategy--or even a weapons-free one. I want to instill a sense of honor and god damn responsibility for others into the people of this country. I'm not stupid enough to send them all out to scream and flail at each other; self defense training is a good thing. Everyone should learn some basic hand-to-hand martial arts--something soft (Judo, Aikido, Pentjak Silat), something hard (Muy Thai kickboxing), not necessarily mandatory that everyone study the same thing--but also should be allowed to pursue personal interests. That can mean honing their skills with their bodies (fists, legs, etc) or taking up a weapon (sword/bokken, three sectional staff, jo, etc).
I feel that this flexibility allows people to become comfortable with a part of themselves--for example, I hate knives and will reject a knife in favor of my bare hands, but I instantly found an affinity for the Jo and could wield it somewhat skillfully, moreso than anything I'd actually practiced with. I dislike knives because they're too limiting... I can do a lot of non-leathal damage and bruising with a jo, but knives are exclusively for cuts and gnashes and crippling and fatal blood loss.
That comfort, the confidence in their ability to competently defend themselves, a feeling of community with other people who will come to your aid and who you feel a responsibility for if they require aid, and the ever present fear of immediate and unavoidable retribution from society (as in everyone, not just the police that you're so sure won't ever catch you) for violating the very base rule of society (that is: a society must
I liked the tax cut because, 6 years later, I decided to play with the numbers and I found that, a year and a half later, the GDP (not GNP; GDP is in adjusted dollars) went up 20%. That means the nation as a whole got wealthier. The federal income dropped--by almost 0%, just a bit more than that.
These tax cuts happened in 2001 and 2003. It looks like in the surrounding years (up to 2006), the rich got somewhat richer (from $113,000/year average for those over $70,000/year to $126,000/year average). It looks like the average for each group below that didn't go up; however, the proportion of people in the lowest income groups shrunk and the proportion of people in higher income groups grew. In other words, rich got richer; poor got richer. Probably a result of more jobs opening up.
At the moment, I dislike this analysis because it's fuzzed over by a war occurring at the same time; war has strange effects, often being mistaken for making the economy better while it's making it worse.
Switzerland is QUITE prepared for war, and when somebody invades Switzerland there will be a VERY short and VERY efficient war. If someone THREATENS to carpet bomb Switzerland, I don't imagine they'll hesitate long to mobilize--not longer than it takes to make it quite clear that the pompous ass threatening them will either disarm or be burned to the ground.
Nobody has tried because nobody sees any end result beyond having their ass handed to them.
Barrack Obama is going to take "Worst President," Bush did pretty good until he started a war. War is a necessary thing, but expensive and economically crippling; warfare must be precise, effective, efficient, and carefully considered. This was not a war we needed to fight--at least not so viciously. It should have been easier to pull off our global political goals without bumbling around like retards..
Still, I'm looking at these asses running our country and what do we get? Republicans raving about crazy vicious communist liberals, democrats trying to look more professional while lobbing a constant stream of low-brow attacks at conservatives. All of you shut the fuck up and get some work done.
Insurance is a not-for-profit. You can keep 5% and keep your NFP benefits; the more money you pass, the more money you keep. A college that graduates 10 million students per year is going to walk away with a hell of a lot more money than a college that graduates 10 thousand... about 1,000 times more. The sheer volume of revenue is the limiter for profit.
You've jumped around quite a bit here, so I'll have to jump around with my responses.
Nurses aren't apprentice doctors. They are distinct, but complementary, fields.
Just about everyone who goes to medical school works as a nurse for some time. It is related--it gives them caregiver skills--and they function as an aide to a doctor. Nurses largely make sure people are comfortable, have clean sheets, etc.; but they also notice when someone is sick, make sure they're following prescribed medication during their stay (often administering things like pain killers or insulin as prescribed), make sure they're getting clean and getting any exercise they're supposed to be getting, and take any notes on anything important for the doctor to know about. They also have to get the doctor in the event of an emergency.
Apprenticing as a doctor is a completely different thing; but you will start out your medical career as a nurse. This is valuable experience.
A dollar spent on a worthless thing is a dollar lost to the economy. Wealth is destroyed to concentrate it unnecessarily.
Master's Degrees are even worse than Bachelor's Degrees, though. It's well-known that the entire college system is a huge money-making scheme, and quality has gone down in favor of appealing to more students and drawing more money. Lawyers go to law school, doctors go to med school, often after they have a bachelor's or master's in their field: it's a separate school.
College is for engineers. Learn about math, sciences, physics, engineering, the like. But colleges are trying to push silly stuff like IT management and things that require technical skill sets that are constantly changing and not based on a whole hell of a lot of basic theory. Look at programming degrees: programmers know way too little about how to program and way too much about yesterday's programming languages and today's buzzwords. Programmers learned C++ and Java but had no clue how to deal with raw C, and many of them didn't have the programming background to understand a new language; then .NET happened, and it's like, oh crap, what is this?
Lawyers need to apprentice with a legal professional--I know, I've seen it. Culinary chefs need to apprentice for a while, too. Doctors apprentice--as nurses, then as apprentice doctors. Programmers don't apprentice; managers don't apprentice; Engineers don't apprentice. I don't understand this.
Then on top of it you have dance students and students playing musical instruments, and what do they do? Learn the history of art, learn how to paint, learn about math and science. Why? Why do I need this to be a tuba player? ... why the hell am I taking a bachelor's in tuba?
And then on top of it, $10 textbooks of constantly decreasing quality released on shelf for $200 with a new revision every 4 months so you have to buy new. WTF?
Put some quality into the education and I'll put some stock into it.
Waste heat. You have a turbine at the top, you have a thermocouple near that that the exhaust runs through, QED. By cooling the exhaust, the thermocouple creates a vacuum, but also weighty air that needs to be pushed; of course it doesn't need to be pushed as far. Totally doable.
Cheap shots at our leaders are what help keep the masses pussified.
Pretty much what I was thinking. I'm a computer/engineering guy but I've been doing philosophy lately and I'm writing a book on economics and finances. That book is turning into an essay because... it's information, not fiction; I keep making revisions and pairing it down into a more concise technical writing piece, though I realize I need an appeal to emotion to not completely bore the reader.
Finances fall between engineering, philosophy, and economics. From an engineering standpoint, I have resources, vague goals, and various costs involved in using those resources: rent versus own, car versus bike versus motorcycle versus a diversified strategy involving all that (and maybe public transit), family versus single living, plans for emergencies and for the future, etc. From a philosophical standpoint, I also have various needs to balance: overconsumption and excess luxury are waste, yet elimination of all luxury is not necessarily spiritually healthy--life should be enrichment, not poverty or gluttony. Of course finances and economics go together implicitly: what costs money, what do you do to save money, what do you do with that money?
You see, even philosophical venues--extolling the virtues of using a bicycle or not wasting labor by overusing their car is a philosophical venue--intertwine with "geek" venues like engineering and economics. Using a motorcycle incurs less fuel costs (half) and purchasing costs ($4000 vs $20000) than a car, but the same maintenance; using a bicycle incurs roughly 1/10 of what a motorcycle incurs, and contributes to physical fitness and health as well. Either of these helps the economic goal of reducing wasted labor and putting additional funds into the economy; and, in varying degrees, the environmental concerns of burning excess fossil fuel (motorcycle is both easier to manufacture and takes less energy to run than a car).
The world is filled with interesting problems.
If you're illegally speeding at 60 in a 30mph zone, insurance will typically pay out liability. As well, aggressive driving and the like. ... liability means you're at fault.
Gross negligence is different. In the event that your insurer can show that you weren't just irresponsible, but in fact engaged in such unreasonable behavior that it's patently absurd to leave the insurer to pick up the bill, the judge is probably going to want to hear this--and he'll probably look for a damn good reason to grant relief. You will offend the judge by showing up in his court room claiming that the insured was doing 60mph in a 45mph zone and you thus don't want to pay liability; but if the insured was staging a highly illegal street race--not down the back roads or something, but down open city streets, Tokyo Drift style, for a 40 mile circuit from one end of the city to another, through populated areas, at excessively high speeds--he will be very willing to put fort effort to weasel you out of paying for this shit, (hopefully) to the strict extent of the law (so too bad, you might have to cough up anyway).
The core argument here will be that Sony took out an insurance policy and then proceeded to cease to care about the well being of their clients. They became grossly and possibly criminally negligent, under the assumption that all negative effects of this would fall to the insurance company and thus that they paid to be freed of responsibility for their actions. Insurance will argue that Sony's actions were irresponsible, a public danger, and possibly illegal or fraudulent (depending on what security claims they made to the payment card industry, which actually cares about this sort of thing).
They may not have a legal leg to stand on; but they have enough of an argument for a judge to want to hear it. He might rule against it in the end, but he'll allow it to be heard in his court.
Well, they have a valid case. It's going to get heard by a judge, for sure; this isn't some ridiculous "Oh we don't feel like holding up to our contract because it's bad for us today" kind of thing. What happened here is Sony took out insurance and then caused a massive problem leading to a massive claim through unimaginably gross negligence. It's like if you insure a car and then proceed to speed at 180mph and slam into shit ... your insurer will go, "Oh HELL no," and try to wiggle out of the claims. Often they have clauses that vaguely let them do so, on a good day; whereas basic neglect and driver failure will get them slapped around because that's what you're insured for.
Basically Sony did the equivalent of buying 100k/300k liability insurance and then organizing a massive illegal street race through a complicated course in the city. Gross, gross negligence. Now their insurers are going, "There is no way in Hell we should have to pay for this!" Sony looks like it didn't even try to secure its networks, just like someone running an Indy 500 on open roads looks like they've bought car insurance to avoid having to care about all the damage they know's going to eventually happen.
It's tricky, but it's good enough to get you a day in court. If you just show up like "Well we have a contract but we don't wanna pay..." the judge won't even hear your case.
That does not make any sense. The distribution would follow such that there are spectacularly brilliant and spectacularly stupid people, and there are more smart and more dumb people, and there are most around the mean. Any skew comes from the world not being a monoculture, and thus we can assume that any skew indicates a large portion of the population exists in a specific social setting: if 80% of the world is below average, then a LOT of the world lives in countries or localities that supply a social structure conducive to stupidity, or antagonizing to intelligence, or a mixture of both.
If you shop wisely and read and understand the contract
The contract in this case fits on 1 sheet of paper and is in plain language with specifiers--i.e. anything fuzzy they've defined in very straight forward and very inarguable terms.
100% of the RTO payment goes toward the purchase price in this agreement; but if you pass it back, they keep the money. As they rent to high school band students, they usually keep things most of the time, which is extremely lucrative.
You could have used a battery-backed RAM IDE drive (slots into the PCI slot, contains RAM and a battery), but that's only really a good idea for temp space, and most databases won't fully-journal to a separate temporary space. It's a pity, because doing 32 or 64GB on RAM would be a huge performance boost, but way too much to keep in risk of data loss.
I've yet to see a ROHS fail and I've got stuff that's ROHS compliant from ages ago ... my TV is from the early 90s and is a bubble tube, and all silver-tin.
You had a defective computer. If your computer was swapping enough to do that in 10 minutes to NAND flash, you were at the point where you clicked a tab in firefox and the whole window sat white for 3-4 minutes while paging. This is where you have 128MB RAM and 2GB swap and you're using 1.8 gigs total, actively.
Actually, I'm looking heavily into rent-to-own for musical instruments in the future. They're expensive, yes; but I can get a good, $1000 Romanian-made violin for $50/mo, and if i hate the violin I'm out $150. If I hate THAT violin, I switch to another, and then when I find a model I enjoy I tell them to exchange my RTO for a brand new one of that model and apply my rental costs.
The RTO place I'm going to basically rents these instruments, so you get something used by a dozen people before, mostly high school kids in band renting for the school year (a $1200 cello goes for one payment of $329 for September-June, or like $20/mo or something month-by-month); but they'll let you trade up and keep your record as long as you continuously rent the same instrument (a violin, flute, guitar ... no trading across to abandon violin for cello).
So, $200 for crappy instrument that's actively hard to play, or $500 for a decent entry-level, only to find you could have done much better for $1000. That's how it works. You can get a good Yamaha guitar for $200-$300, but the vast majority of sub-$500 guitars are garbage with horrible intonation and no tuning stability, and sometimes they're such cheap wood that they warp under stress in several months. A Cordoba C5 is a great guitar; the C9 is a fucking awesome guitar for $900 instead of $500, and the $1400 models they sell are notably warmer and richer in tone.
Or you spend $20-$50 a month for 2-3 months, decide you don't like the instrument, give back a very nice instrument you spent $60-$150 on, and go about your way.
RTO apartments and LTO cars can make sense, too (yeah, you can own an apartment), if you enjoy driving (thus you're picky about cars) or you're not interested in debt and you're prone to renting (RTO is better than renting if you're not looking to buy). They can also be idiot-bait.
u r a fucking lamer lol lol loooooool grenaded ur flag fgt i pwned ur mom roflcopter u sux cox
The maximum surface exposure is what, 6 inches x 4 inches one way, 1/4 inch by 4 inches the other? And the surface is flat. That's 1/24 of the drag, roughly.
It's shiny. If it's shiny you will buy it. Clean water is shiny, and clean water is less likely to be toxic, so shiny things are intrinsically and instinctively valuable because they remind us of life and survival. If you put Brita filtered tap water into two different glasses and give them to women, whichever glass is shinier will inevitably have the best tasting water. Men are less reliable with this, but over a large amount of samples it's still pretty significant, up in the 60-70% range .. 90-95% for women.
The Apple Store is made of polished glass, and everything inside is god damn Jesus.
How did you determine that? The smallest profile is what will face into the air resistance by nature; it takes energy to rotate out to resist...