As someone with an MBA and degree in CS..
on
The Zen of SOA
·
· Score: 0, Troll
This reads like a very elaborate hoax.
It seems to be gibberish.
The emperor may not be wearing any clothes.
I'm sure this fad will go the way of:
ISO
"quality"
six-sigma
Total Quality Management
etc...
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is a tort that is well established in US Common Law. Generally the plaintiff must show that the defendant intentionally or recklessly caused severe emotional distress and that damage resulted. Some jurisdictions want to see a physical harm rise from the mental harm. In this case, suicide would be a physical harm resulting from the emotional emotional distress. This seems to be a pretty clear cut case of tortious infliction of emotional distress.
the inmate has attempted to join the suit even though his presence is not requested or required by the plaintiff or defendant. He can do this under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b), however the judge will quickly dismiss it because FRCP 24(b)1b requires that his claim shares a common question of law or fact as the main case.
We, the manufacturer of your microwave, reserve the right to destroy any food you might place in your microwave, should we determine that the food item violates any of our distribution agreements.
P.S.
We have entered into a distribution with Kraft, so don't even try to put in a competitor's product. Or even anything home-made that might resemble a Kraft product.
That is the law of the united states.
It is the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure #11.
A lawyer must sign every paper he files, certifying that the information based in it is based upon evidence and is not meant to delay, harass or increase the cost of litigation.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm
Co-locating your production facility in the same region that your customers are is a necessary currency hedge in the auto biz. Otherwise a change in currency values could quickly make a [foreign car] un-affordable. This happened to Porche a few decades back....
The reason to ban insider trading has less to do with ethics then economics. A market that allows insider trading discourages capital investment by those without insider information. Encouraging people to invest in markets so that our companies have enough capital requires limits on insider trading.
There is a huge body of academic work on the economic effects of insider trading. There are reasonable and convincing papers written by reputable economists on both sides of the issue.
Instant Run Off is the opposite of democracy because voting for your candidate can cause him or her to loose. This is because IRV fails the Monotonicity Criterion.
I'm not saying income tax is right or wrong, or whether or not a space flight is income. Just asserting that Income tax is the law of the land, as spelled out by constitution and supported in courts.
Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 241 (7 th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) - The court stated, "We find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment generally, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company . . . and those specifically rejecting the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was, have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure." The court imposed sanctions on them for having advanced a "patently frivolous" position.
United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9 th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1036 (1987) - Stating that "the Secretary of State's certification under authority of Congress that the Sixteenth Amendment has been ratified by the requisite number of states and has become part of the Constitution is conclusive upon the courts," the court upheld Stahl's conviction for failure to file returns and for making a false statement.
Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (5 th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830 (1986) - The court rejected the contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was not constitutionally adopted as "totally without merit" and imposed monetary sanctions against Knoblauch based on the frivolousness of his appeal. "Every court that has considered this argument has rejected it," the court observed.
United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7 th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 (1986) - The court affirmed Foster's conviction for tax evasion, failing to file a return, and filing a false W-4 statement, rejecting his claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified.
When something like this is proposed, one must think, "What is the worst way this will be used?". As that will be the way gov & biz will use it.
An example of this is your social security number without which applying to school, getting health insurance, opening a bank account, getting medical care...etc... is very difficult.
Not supplying your SSN on a US passport application gets you a $500 fine. Is getting a passport a matter of social security?
To quote the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Well $100/year is a un-realistic amount of money for a huge segment of the worlds population. Additionally there will be other major costs besides building the plants. Major infrastructure will be required, We need perhaps half a million more nuclear physists, (those people require 10 years of education). New schools and tranining facilities will be required. Uranium Mining will have to be stepped up by a factor of at least 100. I'm not sure how this could be called "not a very big undertaking at all." What other peaceful, world-wide, multi-trillion, decade-long projects can you point to?
Hi, thanks for taking the time to read my post and respond.
My calculation was just based upon the fact that we use 30 billion barrels of oil per year. I was speaking of just replacing OIL usage with nuclear. Existing nuclear plants, hydroelectric, etc.. are outside the scope of my OP.
to summerize, 30 BIllion barrels of oil/year = 3300 nuclear plants.
I agree with you, Ethanol & H2 are not workable.
Please consider, however, what switching this planet over to nuclear power would require.
Assume 2gw power plants, worldwide oil consumption of 30Billionbarrels/year
If I calculated corectly, the world would need about 3300 nuclear powerplants to replace oil energy with nuclear energy. I'm not claiming this is impossible, but it would be by far the largest building effort humanity has ever attempted. Nuke plants take from 5-15 to build and cost.5 -3 billion USD. Please recall that the world economy is only produces 45 trillion/year. Additionally, we don't have unlimited supplies of uranium either. I'm not saying that we cant switch to nuclear. Just that it is not an easy fix or a magic bullet. It's not very feasible.
'Best predictor' does not mean 'explains every case'.
For Example:
General Statement: Smoking is a good predictor of lung cancer
Specific example:Then how do you explain my uncle xyz who smokes all his life and doesnt have cancer?
Wrong conclusion derived from specific example: Smoking is not a good predictor of lung cancer
Slashdot Mirror
This reads like a very elaborate hoax.
It seems to be gibberish.
The emperor may not be wearing any clothes.
I'm sure this fad will go the way of:
ISO
"quality"
six-sigma
Total Quality Management
etc...
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is a tort that is well established in US Common Law. Generally the plaintiff must show that the defendant intentionally or recklessly caused severe emotional distress and that damage resulted. Some jurisdictions want to see a physical harm rise from the mental harm. In this case, suicide would be a physical harm resulting from the emotional emotional distress. This seems to be a pretty clear cut case of tortious infliction of emotional distress.
the inmate has attempted to join the suit even though his presence is not requested or required by the plaintiff or defendant. He can do this under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b), however the judge will quickly dismiss it because FRCP 24(b)1b requires that his claim shares a common question of law or fact as the main case.
http://www.pidgin.im/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidgin
http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/
P.S. We have entered into a distribution with Kraft, so don't even try to put in a competitor's product. Or even anything home-made that might resemble a Kraft product.
That is the law of the united states. It is the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure #11. A lawyer must sign every paper he files, certifying that the information based in it is based upon evidence and is not meant to delay, harass or increase the cost of litigation. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm
Co-locating your production facility in the same region that your customers are is a necessary currency hedge in the auto biz. Otherwise a change in currency values could quickly make a [foreign car] un-affordable. This happened to Porche a few decades back....
that is all
There is a huge body of academic work on the economic effects of insider trading. There are reasonable and convincing papers written by reputable economists on both sides of the issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotonicity_criterion
Fujitsu has had a CTRL-ALT-DEL button for years on their life book tablets. I bought 150 of them for company where I work.
Watch a livefeed of edits in real time.
Click on suspicious ones to check them out, and revert when apropriate. It's easy, fun and satisifying.
Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 241 (7 th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) - The court stated, "We find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment generally, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company . . . and those specifically rejecting the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was, have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure." The court imposed sanctions on them for having advanced a "patently frivolous" position.
United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9 th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1036 (1987) - Stating that "the Secretary of State's certification under authority of Congress that the Sixteenth Amendment has been ratified by the requisite number of states and has become part of the Constitution is conclusive upon the courts," the court upheld Stahl's conviction for failure to file returns and for making a false statement.
Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (5 th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830 (1986) - The court rejected the contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was not constitutionally adopted as "totally without merit" and imposed monetary sanctions against Knoblauch based on the frivolousness of his appeal. "Every court that has considered this argument has rejected it," the court observed.
United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7 th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 (1986) - The court affirmed Foster's conviction for tax evasion, failing to file a return, and filing a false W-4 statement, rejecting his claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified.
An example of this is your social security number without which applying to school, getting health insurance, opening a bank account, getting medical care...etc... is very difficult.
Not supplying your SSN on a US passport application gets you a $500 fine. Is getting a passport a matter of social security?
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Ratified 02/13/1913
Pay me as much as a doctor or lawyer, and I'll be nicer.
plink me@myhost.org -D 6000
then set your browser to use a socks proxy on 127.0.0.1
now all your web traffic is encrypted through an ssh tunnel.
If you like ssh you should donate to openbsd.
Well $100/year is a un-realistic amount of money for a huge segment of the worlds population. Additionally there will be other major costs besides building the plants. Major infrastructure will be required, We need perhaps half a million more nuclear physists, (those people require 10 years of education). New schools and tranining facilities will be required. Uranium Mining will have to be stepped up by a factor of at least 100. I'm not sure how this could be called "not a very big undertaking at all." What other peaceful, world-wide, multi-trillion, decade-long projects can you point to?
Some math:
world consumption of oil 31Billion Barrels/year
31*10^9 barrels/year * 5800000btus/Barrel * 1055 Joules/btu =
1.89*10^20 Joules/Year is the worlds energy consumption
Now Assume 2 gigawatt reactors (2*10^9 watts)
A watt is a Joule/Second
with 31536000 seconds/year a 2gigawat nuclear reactor generates
6.3*10^16 watts/year
Now, (world oil energy use/year) / (nuke plant output/year) = the number of nuclear plants we would need to build to replace our oil dependance
1.89E20 / 6.3E16 = 3000 nuclear powerplants
Keep in mind a nuke plant costs a billion to build, takes 5 years and the US has not tried to make one in 25 years.
I'm not saying it would be impossible, but it would be the single largest undertaking that humanity has ever attempted.
download plink (command line putty)
plink me@my.friend.with.a.server -D 6000
then set your browser to use a socks server at 127.0.0.1 on port 6000
IIRC UPS is 2nd biggest donor to the Republican party,
For making non-standards-compliant, non portable, code that wont work in 4 years.
Hi, thanks for taking the time to read my post and respond.
My calculation was just based upon the fact that we use 30 billion barrels of oil per year. I was speaking of just replacing OIL usage with nuclear. Existing nuclear plants, hydroelectric, etc.. are outside the scope of my OP.
to summerize, 30 BIllion barrels of oil/year = 3300 nuclear plants.
Assume 2gw power plants, worldwide oil consumption of 30Billionbarrels /year
If I calculated corectly, the world would need about 3300 nuclear powerplants to replace oil energy with nuclear energy. I'm not claiming this is impossible, but it would be by far the largest building effort humanity has ever attempted. Nuke plants take from 5-15 to build and cost .5 -3 billion USD. Please recall that the world economy is only produces 45 trillion/year. Additionally, we don't have unlimited supplies of uranium either. I'm not saying that we cant switch to nuclear. Just that it is not an easy fix or a magic bullet. It's not very feasible.
'Best predictor' does not mean 'explains every case'.
For Example:
General Statement: Smoking is a good predictor of lung cancer
Specific example:Then how do you explain my uncle xyz who smokes all his life and doesnt have cancer?
Wrong conclusion derived from specific example: Smoking is not a good predictor of lung cancer