Sure, IE development may make extra work for you -- but then again, you're being paid for that work. Why not be happy that "that cowboy Internet Explorer" helped you find gainful employment? Ah, the broken window fallacy again? My favorite. I'm aware that this was just a tongue-in-cheek quip at the end of your post, but many people take this type of statement at face value so I feel compelled to respond.
Without having to code for broken browsers, talented web devs like the GP could spend the same amount of time adding more features, or working on more sites. If there is truly not enough demand for those things, the people who would be less efficient web developers will allocate their talents to a different field in the first place and produce something of value rather than spending more time to achieve the same result in multiple incompatible browsers. In all cases, the total work stays the same but the total output, also known as wealth, increases.
People get distracted by nominal GDP, which stays about the same in this case because everyone still commands a similar salary for performing basically the same type of work. In the classic "broken window" fallacy, GDP seems to be increased by breaking a window because a new one must be produced to replace it. What people often miss is that a country's currency is worth more when their total wealth production is higher, and nominal GDP is measured in that currency. To quote nominal GDP without also quoting the change in the value of the currency is meaningless at best.
Good list of advice. I want to suggest an alternative to one of them:
Don't use a 3rd party bill-pay for credit cards. If the bill-pay is down, you'll be held responsible if you're late. You have a stronger case for dropping late fees if it's your own credit card company's fault. Or find an online bill payment system that explicitly gives you protection against that. For example, mine says "Payment late? [billpay-company-name] will bear the responsibility for any late-payment-related charges (up to $50) should a payment arrive after its due date as long as you scheduled the transaction in accordance with the service's terms and conditions."
Late payments don't go on your credit history until they are at least 30 days overdue, so you generally have time to catch this sort of error while the late fee they cover is still the only penalty.
Parent post misstates many facts and is quite misguided about the whole thing. Every number in the post is wrong, as is some of the reasoning. I'm not going to waste my time correcting someone who's obviously not interested in the actual numbers, but I didn't want to let it stand either. If anyone else is actually reading this and wants the details, just reply to my post so I get a notification and I can help you out.
Possibly the individual state budgets are not counted in that figure? Bingo. The 19.3% figure is only federal (national) government spending.
There is an unofficial holiday each year called Tax Freedom Day. Based on the average total tax burden for a US citizen compared to their average income, it's the day on which we start working for ourselves instead of for the government. For example, if the total amount of federal, state and local government taxes was equal to two twelfths of people's total income in a given year, Tax Freedom Day would fall on March 1st of that year. They seem to calculate it based on taxes/GNI, which is a decent proxy for budget/GDP.
Tax Freedom Day in 2007 fell on April 30th. "In percentages, [US] government at all levels now takes 32.7 percent of the nation's income." Still less than the British govt, but not by nearly as much.
The grandparent post was talking about internet freedom, not press freedom.
Google is famous for providing censored search results in China, so a search on google.cn returns a subset of the results from google.com. If a country like that is given control over what websites their citizens can access (through controlling the DNS servers for their country or by other means), you can bet they'll be blocking the same sites that they won't let Google index. This is evil.
Unfortunately, the press freedom index apparently doesn't weight the internet very highly. After all, Google provides similarly censored search results in at least three of the countries you listed: France, Germany and Switzerland. To allow those countries to censor their citizen's internet is evil.
You know you can play the Bass part in Guitar Hero, right? Some of the songs in GH2 had much more interesting bass parts as well... John the Fisherman, War Pigs, etc.
I agree that it's funny to point out the inclusion of such songs in "guitar" hero games, but it's not quite as silly as you might think if you hadn't played it.
Now, bear with me since I'm not from the US and as such I'm probably biased as well as unfamiliar with some things. No problem. I wouldn't expect people from another region of the world to know US History, since it really wouldn't be relevant for you. After all, how much do you think I know the origin and organization of the Bunds? Not much. Heck, just by knowing English fluently and conversing on a mostly US-centric website, you've already reached out more than I have. Given that, I'm more than happy to tell you all about the States, if you're interested:
Whenever I see some detectives on TV or talk to friends who happen to be American I'm always confronted with the issue of the states. To me the closest thing resembleing this are Germanies "Bunds" (Bundesrepubliek Deutschland). The closest thing resembling this will perhaps be Germany itself--250 years from now. Allow me to explain.
The United States began like the European Union: formerly independent entities, where the only thing managed and enforced on a centralized basis was a single currency and a few overarching laws of human rights that each state agreed were universal, along with an agreement allowing (and requiring) the states to all fund the same army/navy if a war came up. Of course I'm simplifying an unbelievable amount, but this is a Slashdot post, not a series of 1000-page history books:-).
Nobody was a "United States citizen" for almost a century following the founding the Unification of the States. Instead, someone was considered a citizen of "the republic of Virginia," for example. This is why each of the States (still) has its own constitution, legislature/parliament equivalent, central executive (governor), laws, courts, ID cards, and so forth, and they can all be different from each other.
The national government (aka "federal" government, as in "federation of otherwise-independent states") has gradually taken more and more power and unified more and more laws across the states, until the average person doesn't know that "state" is a generic synonym for "government," or even a sovereign country as in "nation-state." The lines between the United States keep blurring as time goes on, as the federal government regulates more and more things even though the constitution was written to prevent it.
Getting back to your detective example of a criminal running for the state border: would it make more sense for you if he fled from Germany to France, because German police wouldn't be able to cross the border and arrest him outside their jurisdiction? They'd have to get the help of the French police instead. That's why I say Germany itself might be a more apt analogy for our states.
250 years from now, citizens of the UCA (the newly-formed Unified Countries of Asia) will wonder how the heck the EU's "Germany" subdivison is allowed to have different laws than its "France" subdivision, even though they are both part of the EU and are right next to each other. How long do you think it will be before the term "EU citizen" is defined, and the only valid passport/international ID is issued by the EU, rather than your own country? 75 years? Maybe by 2100?
In that case, your centralization will be right on track with that of the United Governments (states) of America. Maybe you, too, will have the old guys who long for the "good old days" when Germany got to make its own laws without the meddling of the French, and are always talking about "nations' rights," whatever that means... but everyone will make fun of them as old-fashioned conservatives. And maybe you will also have half the members deciding they'd be better off leaving the EU, and the other half invading them and fighting a war to prevent them from leaving. But I guess I'm drifting a bit far afield, so I'll leave it here.
a userspace driver framework I have a question for someone better-informed than myself: Does this mean we are a step closer to not having to recompile nvidia's video drivers after installing a new kernel?
Vote for the gorillas. 25 grand and fame that id probably just piss away anyway is not worth a specie. Is it bad that my first thought was: He said specie instead of "not worth a cent" because he knows that fiat currency has no intrinsic value? He's an even better fit for Slashdot than I thought!! (I guess if the gorillas are silverbacks he has both bases covered.)
Seriously, though, it's not a coincidence that the people who deserve recognition and an award are not as likely to want it: money and fame is not what they were after. Despite this, we should still give it to them. It makes it so they don't have to worry about their own welfare and bottom line as much, and can pay even more attention to the calling that really drives them and for which they were recognized in the first place.
In this case, I hope he can use the money and press coverage to help win his conflict with the state and anything similar that comes up later. It sounds like he's on the way to a solution with them already, but I wonder how much the "fame" he didn't want has already helped him to be able to continue doing what he really does want to do: help people and help the environment.
ING Direct does something clever like this to obfuscate the PIN entry to their online banking. Why they go to so much trouble but only require a 4-digit numeric PIN baffles me, but here's how it works:
Each time you visit, they display a numeric keypad onscreen, with a random letter under each number that changes every visit. You type the 4 letters that correspond to your PIN, or you can just click the buttons to use javascript to fill in the PIN field with those letters. It's like a simple, visual version of a salted password.
It's still vulnerable if the "keylogger" takes a screen shot and records the location of each mouse click, but it prevents a lot of simpler attacks. When I compared it to Wells Fargo, which has about the same security as my Gmail account, I was reasonably impressed.
"(*gasp*, someone on/. admitted they were wrong!)"
Pretty amazing alright!:-) I never look forward to seeing the "1 new message" notification, because it's always the parent poster replying to my reply to stubbornly insist that I have no idea what I'm talking about. I'm sure everyone makes the same misinterpretation the first time they see PZEV spelled out, though. I mostly wanted to use it as an excuse to try out grouping punctuation, which I was just discussing with people at work earlier today:-).
In the end, both Linux and BSD users lost out. Was OpenBSD really going to profit from it or commercialize it, no! Nice strawman. Nobody would actually argue that, which makes it a very easy point for you to knock down. Try this one:
If a BSD project were allowed to take that code and relicense it to other people under the BSD license, Microsoft could take the code, make modifications to it, and legally use those modifications in Windows without free software developers being able to even see what they were, much less include them to improve hardware support in Linux/BSD.
BSD developers are okay with that. Linux developers aren't: they (presumably) license their code under GPL precisely because they don't want closed-source vendors to take advantage of it in this way. Allowing their code to be licensed under a BSD or similar license would go counter to those purposes. If the BSD project wants to use code written by someone who doesn't want their code to be locked up in the future, they have to respect that wish (as stated in the license) by redistributing under the GPL or not at all. I'm not familiar with the details of the Broadcom driver issue, but if Theo wants to use that code, he has to convince the copyright holders to license it under a BSD license before taking it.
Either you don't understand how copy licensing works, or you're using very sloppy language and it's going to confuse someone else, so I'm going to correct it.
I have written a lot of code under the BSD-style license and been happy about it. It has let me apply that code in places where corporate policies are too anal to allow GPL code. If you wrote the code, then it doesn't matter if you've licensed it to anyone with the GPL or any other license. You can use or copy it for whatever purposes you want, without obeying the terms of any license, because you have the copyright. The BSD license would only come into play if you were talking about using other people's code.
"No, I'm sorry, you can't integrate my small component into your giant proprietary and ITAR-restricted satellite system unless you agree to give away the entire code to your giant ITAR-restricted satellite system to anybody who wants it. [...]" The GPL license doesn't restrict use. It only "restricts" the sort of copying that would be illegal under United States copyright law without a license allowing it. Here's a corrected example: "No, I'm sorry, you can't integrate my small component into your giant proprietary and ITAR-restricted satellite system unless you agree to give away the code that is compiled/linked with the GPL component to anybody who you also give the satellite and the compiled version of its software to."
After using google.com for years, and google maps almost since it was launched, [...] I can remember no minor outages in my experience, nor am I aware of any other outages reported in any major online media. Gmail has been down a number of times, for long enough that I'm glad I keep a local copy of all my mail from that account. On top of which, my ISP is less reliable than any major website. However, I don't see this as a dealbreaker for online apps. I still use Gmail after all! It just means that they should have graceful failure modes for when the network is unavailable. Automatic synchronized local backups alleviate many of the concerns about SaaS, including network downtimes and lock-in. I'm very hesitant to use a service for anything important if it doesn't have that kind of failure mode.
if there is a price difference it should favour the graduates that we need. In the UK that means more Medics, more engineers & scientists - so charge these students less. A system for favoring the jobs that are "needed" is already in place: they are in high demand, so they earn a higher wage once they graduate. The only difference between higher wage and lower tuition is timing, which brings me to my next point:
This is where government intervention/financial_support is needed for the long term good of society -- I can't see it happening since the payoff is way beyond the next election. I assume by "financial support" you mean gifts and grants, but really all that is needed is a fluid loans market. If society really does need a certain type of job, it will be worth it for young people to borrow money to get that education, and people should be willing to make those loans (because the high wage makes the students likely to be able to pay them off in the future). If it doesn't make financial sense for a certain student to borrow money to pursue a certain type of education, then one of two things has occurred:
Other people are willing to "pay" a premium to enter that field (in the form of either higher costs or lower wages), e.g. because they enjoy the work or have different expectations about future wages levels than other students do. In this case, if the student doesn't enjoy the work and was just looking for something financially lucrative, he must simply admit that his thresholds of cost/wage levels for that job are away from the market equilibrium level and study in another field instead. It should probably be one that he enjoys, so that he is the one with the natural advantage instead.
The field is oversupplied due to some external factor, such as government subsidization of particular kinds of education.
If you do the math on loans and find that it doesn't pay to enter a certain educational field, then one of these is true and your claim of the job being "needed" in society rings hollow in my ears.
if you got into a car and instead of the ignition key there was a touchscreen on the dashboard Then you would be driving a Prius.
I <3 my gadget car:-).
Interestingly, the Prius really supports your argument, since the engineers at Toyota went to great lengths to make it drive like a "normal" car. If they hadn't added the artificial "idling forward" and "slowing down like from engine braking," people might not like it as much because it'd feel too different. Of course, the types of us who also use niche distributions of Linux can complain about how it's inefficient, but that's the reality.
Test it out for yourself in Firefox and IE, and see the content magically appear! I don't know what will happen it other browsers, but I can't say I'm optimistic.
The Comcast start page *does* work okay with Firefox, however, provided you have the latest Flash player installed. There are a few minor rendering difficulties at times, however. I'm assuming you are referring to Comcast.com? Sadly, the problems are not restricted to "a few minor rendering difficulties," although those do exist. I had the joy of transferring my Comcast installation from one address to another, so I could preserve the temporary discount I have on my account. I found a convenient link on their site, called "Comcast Movers Edge." Sounds perfect. I click, and it takes me to a page with the following content:
Moving? Get phone, Internet and cable into your new home without pulling a muscle. Now there's a completely painless way to set up all your services with Comcast Movers Edge before you move in. That's Comcastic!
It's easy to set up or transfer your phone, Internet and cable services. Just enter your old and new addresses, and set up an installation appointment on the date of your choice. Then you can relax while Comcast does all the heavy lifting. Nothing else. No links or phone numbers to actually start the process. I must have crawled around their stupid site for half an hour in Firefox before I thought to try IE. (I run Linux at home, so this entailed connecting to my company's remote desktop). Sure enough, there's a signup form right on that page that fails completely silently in Firefox, with no indication that anything is amiss.
Yahoo makes a mint on the viewership of the site and the answer people get a warm feeling... maybe it breaks even. Maybe? By definition, both sides come out ahead, or they wouldn't engage in the behavior. This is true of all non-coerced exchanges.
The stingyness of the agency is set by public choice through democracy, which is far more efficient than market choice. Except that it doesn't allow for two different people to have two different choices. It involves you forcing your choice on me and taking my money to pay for it... Where "you" is the most vocal minority or the group with the most lobbying dollars and "me" is everyone else: the "commons" in the tragedy of the commons. Even if "you" is a legitimate majority preference, it still screws over the minority who won't have any choice in the matter.
(I'll put aside the ill-founded complaint of 3rd party stockholders making a profit off your insurance, thanks to the existence of mutual insurance companies.)
In fact, for profit insurance is stuck in a fundamental conflict of interest; they will be most successful by finding ways to weasel out of their obligations. Government insurance, on the other hand, is beholden to the voters, and doesn't embezzle premiums off into profit. Further, it greatly simplifies the system. If there's an accident, there's only one party to make payments, not 2 or more who will fight about who should pay what percent. When you get in a crash, the other policyholders at the same company pay for your repairs. The insurance company (or government) is not the one ultimately on the hook for this money, because the only place they get money is from those other policyholders. When an insurance company denies frivolous claims, it is actually acting on behalf of all the other individuals that don't want to pay for those claims! The only conflict of interest is that selfish policyholders don't want to pay for the other people's repairs.
Do you think it would be better if the policyholders weren't so selfish? Well, right now, thanks to the free market, there is nothing stopping a "generous" insurance company like you describe from existing (except perhaps government regulation, ironically). That's what makes the market "Free." You can get together with all the other altruistic people and pay for each other's car crashes 100% without hassling each other about liability and proper claims.
The other thing that makes the market Free is that people are free to choose between the companies, without being forced to pay for any one in particular. I am not forced to join you. This lets the market efficiently determine whether people think it's worth the extra cost to themselves in order to pay for more claims, or whether they'd prefer a company that works hard to avoid paying frivolous claims or claims where the other driver was at fault.
Given the state of the market, it should be obvious which type of company most people actually want. You should actually be in favor of the free-market system for insurance: If there were a single government system, it would pay claims according to the voter preference, which seems to be rather stingy. You would be unable to get hassle-free insurance, because everyone else would be forcing you to pay premiums for their government-mandated democratically-chosen hassle-full insurance system.
The shareholder proposal is worded in a much more straightforward way than the Board's response... no surprise there. The response, which is trying to convince other shareholders not to vote for the proposal, is chock full of weasel words that never promise to do anything, only to try to do it. As in "Oh well, we tried, better luck next time... *shrug*". However, the Board says a few things pretty clearly if you dig through the document. Here's some choice quotes:
Yahoo! believes private industry alone cannot effectively influence foreign government policies on issues like the free exchange of ideas and open access to information.
There is nothing other than private industry. Private industry is people, and influences other people.
These complicated issues require a detailed understanding of the Company's business (which is highly competitive and characterized by rapid change), user base and technologies, as well as an ability to conform to the various legal and regulatory systems of the countries in which the Company maintains operations.
i.e., "You are too stupid to make that kind of proposal. We know better than you." I'm not sure that sentence could be any more condescending.
Yahoo! also believes its existing policies appropriately recognize the different roles private industry and governments play with respect to the nature of the Internet and the flow of information.
Since Yahoo's current policy "recognizes" the role of private industry giving up the names of anonymous bloggers to totalitarian governments, apparently Yahoo believes that role is "appropriate."
Slashdot Mirror
Without having to code for broken browsers, talented web devs like the GP could spend the same amount of time adding more features, or working on more sites. If there is truly not enough demand for those things, the people who would be less efficient web developers will allocate their talents to a different field in the first place and produce something of value rather than spending more time to achieve the same result in multiple incompatible browsers. In all cases, the total work stays the same but the total output, also known as wealth, increases.
People get distracted by nominal GDP, which stays about the same in this case because everyone still commands a similar salary for performing basically the same type of work. In the classic "broken window" fallacy, GDP seems to be increased by breaking a window because a new one must be produced to replace it. What people often miss is that a country's currency is worth more when their total wealth production is higher, and nominal GDP is measured in that currency. To quote nominal GDP without also quoting the change in the value of the currency is meaningless at best.
Late payments don't go on your credit history until they are at least 30 days overdue, so you generally have time to catch this sort of error while the late fee they cover is still the only penalty.
Parent post misstates many facts and is quite misguided about the whole thing. Every number in the post is wrong, as is some of the reasoning. I'm not going to waste my time correcting someone who's obviously not interested in the actual numbers, but I didn't want to let it stand either. If anyone else is actually reading this and wants the details, just reply to my post so I get a notification and I can help you out.
There is an unofficial holiday each year called Tax Freedom Day. Based on the average total tax burden for a US citizen compared to their average income, it's the day on which we start working for ourselves instead of for the government. For example, if the total amount of federal, state and local government taxes was equal to two twelfths of people's total income in a given year, Tax Freedom Day would fall on March 1st of that year. They seem to calculate it based on taxes/GNI, which is a decent proxy for budget/GDP.
Tax Freedom Day in 2007 fell on April 30th. "In percentages, [US] government at all levels now takes 32.7 percent of the nation's income." Still less than the British govt, but not by nearly as much.
The grandparent post was talking about internet freedom, not press freedom.
Google is famous for providing censored search results in China, so a search on google.cn returns a subset of the results from google.com. If a country like that is given control over what websites their citizens can access (through controlling the DNS servers for their country or by other means), you can bet they'll be blocking the same sites that they won't let Google index. This is evil.
Unfortunately, the press freedom index apparently doesn't weight the internet very highly. After all, Google provides similarly censored search results in at least three of the countries you listed: France, Germany and Switzerland. To allow those countries to censor their citizen's internet is evil.
You know you can play the Bass part in Guitar Hero, right? Some of the songs in GH2 had much more interesting bass parts as well... John the Fisherman, War Pigs, etc.
I agree that it's funny to point out the inclusion of such songs in "guitar" hero games, but it's not quite as silly as you might think if you hadn't played it.
The United States began like the European Union: formerly independent entities, where the only thing managed and enforced on a centralized basis was a single currency and a few overarching laws of human rights that each state agreed were universal, along with an agreement allowing (and requiring) the states to all fund the same army/navy if a war came up. Of course I'm simplifying an unbelievable amount, but this is a Slashdot post, not a series of 1000-page history books
Nobody was a "United States citizen" for almost a century following the founding the Unification of the States. Instead, someone was considered a citizen of "the republic of Virginia," for example. This is why each of the States (still) has its own constitution, legislature/parliament equivalent, central executive (governor), laws, courts, ID cards, and so forth, and they can all be different from each other.
The national government (aka "federal" government, as in "federation of otherwise-independent states") has gradually taken more and more power and unified more and more laws across the states, until the average person doesn't know that "state" is a generic synonym for "government," or even a sovereign country as in "nation-state." The lines between the United States keep blurring as time goes on, as the federal government regulates more and more things even though the constitution was written to prevent it.
Getting back to your detective example of a criminal running for the state border: would it make more sense for you if he fled from Germany to France, because German police wouldn't be able to cross the border and arrest him outside their jurisdiction? They'd have to get the help of the French police instead. That's why I say Germany itself might be a more apt analogy for our states.
250 years from now, citizens of the UCA (the newly-formed Unified Countries of Asia) will wonder how the heck the EU's "Germany" subdivison is allowed to have different laws than its "France" subdivision, even though they are both part of the EU and are right next to each other. How long do you think it will be before the term "EU citizen" is defined, and the only valid passport/international ID is issued by the EU, rather than your own country? 75 years? Maybe by 2100?
In that case, your centralization will be right on track with that of the United Governments (states) of America. Maybe you, too, will have the old guys who long for the "good old days" when Germany got to make its own laws without the meddling of the French, and are always talking about "nations' rights," whatever that means... but everyone will make fun of them as old-fashioned conservatives. And maybe you will also have half the members deciding they'd be better off leaving the EU, and the other half invading them and fighting a war to prevent them from leaving. But I guess I'm drifting a bit far afield, so I'll leave it here.
Seriously, though, it's not a coincidence that the people who deserve recognition and an award are not as likely to want it: money and fame is not what they were after. Despite this, we should still give it to them. It makes it so they don't have to worry about their own welfare and bottom line as much, and can pay even more attention to the calling that really drives them and for which they were recognized in the first place.
In this case, I hope he can use the money and press coverage to help win his conflict with the state and anything similar that comes up later. It sounds like he's on the way to a solution with them already, but I wonder how much the "fame" he didn't want has already helped him to be able to continue doing what he really does want to do: help people and help the environment.
ING Direct does something clever like this to obfuscate the PIN entry to their online banking. Why they go to so much trouble but only require a 4-digit numeric PIN baffles me, but here's how it works:
Each time you visit, they display a numeric keypad onscreen, with a random letter under each number that changes every visit. You type the 4 letters that correspond to your PIN, or you can just click the buttons to use javascript to fill in the PIN field with those letters. It's like a simple, visual version of a salted password.
It's still vulnerable if the "keylogger" takes a screen shot and records the location of each mouse click, but it prevents a lot of simpler attacks. When I compared it to Wells Fargo, which has about the same security as my Gmail account, I was reasonably impressed.
"(*gasp*, someone on /. admitted they were wrong!)"
:-) I never look forward to seeing the "1 new message" notification, because it's always the parent poster replying to my reply to stubbornly insist that I have no idea what I'm talking about. I'm sure everyone makes the same misinterpretation the first time they see PZEV spelled out, though. I mostly wanted to use it as an excuse to try out grouping punctuation, which I was just discussing with people at work earlier today :-).
Pretty amazing alright!
This is why English needs a grouping punctuation. I will use brackets [] for that purpose:
These cars are NOT [[partial zero] emissions] vehicles. As you note, that would be nonsensical.
They are partial [[zero emissions] vehicles]. For purposes of meeting the California ZEV quota, they don't count as a full ZEVs, only a partial ZEV.
If a BSD project were allowed to take that code and relicense it to other people under the BSD license, Microsoft could take the code, make modifications to it, and legally use those modifications in Windows without free software developers being able to even see what they were, much less include them to improve hardware support in Linux/BSD.
BSD developers are okay with that. Linux developers aren't: they (presumably) license their code under GPL precisely because they don't want closed-source vendors to take advantage of it in this way. Allowing their code to be licensed under a BSD or similar license would go counter to those purposes. If the BSD project wants to use code written by someone who doesn't want their code to be locked up in the future, they have to respect that wish (as stated in the license) by redistributing under the GPL or not at all. I'm not familiar with the details of the Broadcom driver issue, but if Theo wants to use that code, he has to convince the copyright holders to license it under a BSD license before taking it.
- Other people are willing to "pay" a premium to enter that field (in the form of either higher costs or lower wages), e.g. because they enjoy the work or have different expectations about future wages levels than other students do. In this case, if the student doesn't enjoy the work and was just looking for something financially lucrative, he must simply admit that his thresholds of cost/wage levels for that job are away from the market equilibrium level and study in another field instead. It should probably be one that he enjoys, so that he is the one with the natural advantage instead.
- The field is oversupplied due to some external factor, such as government subsidization of particular kinds of education.
If you do the math on loans and find that it doesn't pay to enter a certain educational field, then one of these is true and your claim of the job being "needed" in society rings hollow in my ears.I <3 my gadget car
Interestingly, the Prius really supports your argument, since the engineers at Toyota went to great lengths to make it drive like a "normal" car. If they hadn't added the artificial "idling forward" and "slowing down like from engine braking," people might not like it as much because it'd feel too different. Of course, the types of us who also use niche distributions of Linux can complain about how it's inefficient, but that's the reality.
Sorry, I should have provided a link, since their Movers Edge page is still broken: https://www.comcast.com/Corporate/Move/Default.htm l?lid=5QuickLinksMoving&pos=QuickLinks
Test it out for yourself in Firefox and IE, and see the content magically appear! I don't know what will happen it other browsers, but I can't say I'm optimistic.
Get phone, Internet and cable into your new home without pulling a muscle.
Now there's a completely painless way to set up all your services with Comcast Movers Edge before you move in. That's Comcastic!
It's easy to set up or transfer your phone, Internet and cable services. Just enter your old and new addresses, and set up an installation appointment on the date of your choice. Then you can relax while Comcast does all the heavy lifting. Nothing else. No links or phone numbers to actually start the process. I must have crawled around their stupid site for half an hour in Firefox before I thought to try IE. (I run Linux at home, so this entailed connecting to my company's remote desktop). Sure enough, there's a signup form right on that page that fails completely silently in Firefox, with no indication that anything is amiss.
Comcast.com's Firefox incompatibility definitely extends beyond "cosmetic."
Do you think it would be better if the policyholders weren't so selfish? Well, right now, thanks to the free market, there is nothing stopping a "generous" insurance company like you describe from existing (except perhaps government regulation, ironically). That's what makes the market "Free." You can get together with all the other altruistic people and pay for each other's car crashes 100% without hassling each other about liability and proper claims.
The other thing that makes the market Free is that people are free to choose between the companies, without being forced to pay for any one in particular. I am not forced to join you. This lets the market efficiently determine whether people think it's worth the extra cost to themselves in order to pay for more claims, or whether they'd prefer a company that works hard to avoid paying frivolous claims or claims where the other driver was at fault.
Given the state of the market, it should be obvious which type of company most people actually want. You should actually be in favor of the free-market system for insurance: If there were a single government system, it would pay claims according to the voter preference, which seems to be rather stingy. You would be unable to get hassle-free insurance, because everyone else would be forcing you to pay premiums for their government-mandated democratically-chosen hassle-full insurance system.
Some others love to plunder specialist terms from other people's domains. IT is a classic case in point: [...] "ping"
:)
Yeah, I bet submarine operators got pretty annoyed when IT plundered their specialist term and stopped using it to measure physical distance.
There is nothing other than private industry. Private industry is people, and influences other people.
i.e., "You are too stupid to make that kind of proposal. We know better than you." I'm not sure that sentence could be any more condescending.
Since Yahoo's current policy "recognizes" the role of private industry giving up the names of anonymous bloggers to totalitarian governments, apparently Yahoo believes that role is "appropriate."