Nope. This press freedom index is simply a popularity contest, not anything close to representing a standard way of measuring freedom. The press in the US is much freer than many of its counterparts in Europe. Yet folks have an axe to grind with the US and ding them with their "surveys". Ridiculous to the extreme.
Okay, serious question. Is it really a bad idea to make people's email addresses public? the article makes it seem like this is a bad practice. To me, if you are counting on email addresses to be private, that you have some crappy security going on.
""We took the roster of employees of our two largest offices and checked their corporate email addresses to see which were accessible off the Web. Out of 178 employees, 138 corporate email addresses were easily discovered -- like two or three clicks off Google. That alone surprised me."
In general, you are right but it is not so simple. You have to factor in a lot of things like maintenance, property taxes, liability into the picture before you decide whether it is better to rent or buy. One big things people forget about is the transaction cost of buying and selling. This can be a significant portion of your cash outlays. Say you put a down payment of $20,000 on a $200,000 house. Brokerage and closing costs can be around $15,000 or higher. If you don't intend to live in a house more than a few years youmay just be better off renting.
Why does it matter? Person of the year is about the "person" who had the biggest impact, not necessarilly in a positive way. At the risk of Godwining this thread, Hitler was Time Man of the Year.
I, for one, found this first post hilarious. An on-topic first post is a rarity and should be rewarded. When you think about it, first posts do represent roughly 1% (give or take) of all posts and this tied in well with the topic. I gave extra points for brevity as it is the soul of wit.
This grew out of a system to see around corners. The professor wanted to build a camera that could analyze the path of reflected light to get pictures around ninety degree angles. This is a really amazing concept, moreso than simply getting a camera to take ever increasingly fast pictures.
How can you say that when our own solar system is 63% different than the overall plane of the galaxy? The distributions may be centered on the plane of the galazxy itself, but there is no evidence to what the standard deviation is.
Thank you for your wonderful contribution to this thread. Going forward, I will treat your contributions with the respect it deserves with more regularity.
Many of you may already be aware of this, but it is likely that going forward we will find these "goldilocks" planets with more regularity. Kepler luanched in 2009 with first observations in Jan 2010 and discovers planets using the transit method. Basically, a planet blocks part of its home star's light, and sensitive instruments can pick up on this difference in light. Two transits create a pattern to follow up on, the third transit is considered confirmation of the existence of a plant. So almost 3 earth years of observations means finally being able to detect planets with year long orbits (slight error in logic, depending on when you catch the planet in the act...)
So we are getting to the point where the data should start pouring in on planets more similar to our own. In another 12 months, I would expect to see hundreds if not thousands of planets similar to our own. That is when I think things get interesting. Say we find only 100 "habitable" planets... follow-up observations should give us an idea about the existence or nonexistence of life. Is it common? Is it uncommon? Are we just one of millions of life bearing planets? Are we an outlier? The mind boggles at what we will learn.
Based on the figures you provide, taxes are still somewhat higher or about the same as the 50's as a percent of GDP. This supports the fact that although there were high marginal tax rates that there were significant tax loopholes to avoid these rates. As recently as the 70s, there were ways to get writeoffs higher than the amount of money spent. In the 80s, almost all of those loopholes were shut down. So, it is not accurate to compare tax rates of today with those of 60 years ago.
In 1950, the US spent $42,562 million off of a $293 Billion GDP or 14.5% of GDP In 1955, the US spent $68,444 million off of a $415 Billion GDP or 16.5% of GDP In 2010, the US spent $3,456,213 million off of a $14.5T GDP or 23.7% of GDP
In 1950, the US spent $42,562 million off of a $293 Billion GDP or 14.5% of GDP In 1955, the US spent $68,444 million off of a $415 Billion GDP or 16.5% of GDP In 2010, the US spent $3,456,213 million off of a $14.5T GDP or 23.7% of GDP
So, sorry. federal spending is MUCH higher as a percentage of GDP than in the 50's.
The trip is expected to last 300 days. Doing the math, this is 200 km/day, or roughly 8 km/hr (5 mi/hr for my American friends). If we divided by four, we'd have a 2 km/hr speed.
You use the newer pi*d method of measuring circumference. I prefer the more tried and true 2 * pi * r. Sure it is an extra multiplicand, but there are no shortcuts to accuracy.
Or, perhaps, as they are taking measurements, they are not going in a straight line? Also, not being powered by anthing more than the waves themselves, I am sure they are subject to the ocean currents.
I am sure the school carefully checked over the scrap paper being donated. Some teacher probably got a box full of paper, took a quick look and was just thankful her funding-starved school got some paper. Otherwise, she'd have had to buy some out of her own paycheck like many teachers do...
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. This press freedom index is simply a popularity contest, not anything close to representing a standard way of measuring freedom. The press in the US is much freer than many of its counterparts in Europe. Yet folks have an axe to grind with the US and ding them with their "surveys". Ridiculous to the extreme.
Okay, serious question. Is it really a bad idea to make people's email addresses public? the article makes it seem like this is a bad practice. To me, if you are counting on email addresses to be private, that you have some crappy security going on.
""We took the roster of employees of our two largest offices and checked their corporate email addresses to see which were accessible off the Web. Out of 178 employees, 138 corporate email addresses were easily discovered -- like two or three clicks off Google. That alone surprised me."
In general, you are right but it is not so simple. You have to factor in a lot of things like maintenance, property taxes, liability into the picture before you decide whether it is better to rent or buy. One big things people forget about is the transaction cost of buying and selling. This can be a significant portion of your cash outlays. Say you put a down payment of $20,000 on a $200,000 house. Brokerage and closing costs can be around $15,000 or higher. If you don't intend to live in a house more than a few years youmay just be better off renting.
What am I not understanding? This story seems relevant to me. If you don't agree, you are free to click on a different story.
Why does it matter? Person of the year is about the "person" who had the biggest impact, not necessarilly in a positive way. At the risk of Godwining this thread, Hitler was Time Man of the Year.
I, for one, found this first post hilarious. An on-topic first post is a rarity and should be rewarded. When you think about it, first posts do represent roughly 1% (give or take) of all posts and this tied in well with the topic. I gave extra points for brevity as it is the soul of wit.
Those get old as well.
Well said.
His post was clearly serious.
Obviously, he needed your guidance
Once again, thank you.
Sincerely,
Herbert.
This grew out of a system to see around corners. The professor wanted to build a camera that could analyze the path of reflected light to get pictures around ninety degree angles. This is a really amazing concept, moreso than simply getting a camera to take ever increasingly fast pictures.
if you are interested in learning more and have a lecture's worth of time on your hand, please check one out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKu20y1f_RU
No, it just gets really old seeing the same joke on every damn thread. It adds nothing to the discussion.
How can you say that when our own solar system is 63% different than the overall plane of the galaxy? The distributions may be centered on the plane of the galazxy itself, but there is no evidence to what the standard deviation is.
Thank you for your wonderful contribution to this thread. Going forward, I will treat your contributions with the respect it deserves with more regularity.
Many of you may already be aware of this, but it is likely that going forward we will find these "goldilocks" planets with more regularity. Kepler luanched in 2009 with first observations in Jan 2010 and discovers planets using the transit method. Basically, a planet blocks part of its home star's light, and sensitive instruments can pick up on this difference in light. Two transits create a pattern to follow up on, the third transit is considered confirmation of the existence of a plant. So almost 3 earth years of observations means finally being able to detect planets with year long orbits (slight error in logic, depending on when you catch the planet in the act...)
So we are getting to the point where the data should start pouring in on planets more similar to our own. In another 12 months, I would expect to see hundreds if not thousands of planets similar to our own. That is when I think things get interesting. Say we find only 100 "habitable" planets... follow-up observations should give us an idea about the existence or nonexistence of life. Is it common? Is it uncommon? Are we just one of millions of life bearing planets? Are we an outlier? The mind boggles at what we will learn.
This is an interesting time to be alive :)
After clicking on your name, I take it back. Carry on!
Your post is anonymous as well...
I would have had first post but was applying my Firefox updates.
Based on the figures you provide, taxes are still somewhat higher or about the same as the 50's as a percent of GDP. This supports the fact that although there were high marginal tax rates that there were significant tax loopholes to avoid these rates. As recently as the 70s, there were ways to get writeoffs higher than the amount of money spent. In the 80s, almost all of those loopholes were shut down. So, it is not accurate to compare tax rates of today with those of 60 years ago.
And they had a ton more loopholes. Hence they paid less than they do today:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z1.xls
In 1950, the US spent $42,562 million off of a $293 Billion GDP or 14.5% of GDP
In 1955, the US spent $68,444 million off of a $415 Billion GDP or 16.5% of GDP
In 2010, the US spent $3,456,213 million off of a $14.5T GDP or 23.7% of GDP
You flame but you don't respond to what the poster actually said. Let's look at white house data: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z1.xls
In 1950, the US spent $42,562 million off of a $293 Billion GDP or 14.5% of GDP
In 1955, the US spent $68,444 million off of a $415 Billion GDP or 16.5% of GDP
In 2010, the US spent $3,456,213 million off of a $14.5T GDP or 23.7% of GDP
So, sorry. federal spending is MUCH higher as a percentage of GDP than in the 50's.
The trip is expected to last 300 days. Doing the math, this is 200 km/day, or roughly 8 km/hr (5 mi/hr for my American friends). If we divided by four, we'd have a 2 km/hr speed.
So, I think the article summary is correct.
And considering the trip is about 300 days, this distance is very realistic.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45394819/ns/technology_and_science-innovation/
You use the newer pi*d method of measuring circumference. I prefer the more tried and true 2 * pi * r. Sure it is an extra multiplicand, but there are no shortcuts to accuracy.
Or, perhaps, as they are taking measurements, they are not going in a straight line? Also, not being powered by anthing more than the waves themselves, I am sure they are subject to the ocean currents.
I am sure the school carefully checked over the scrap paper being donated. Some teacher probably got a box full of paper, took a quick look and was just thankful her funding-starved school got some paper. Otherwise, she'd have had to buy some out of her own paycheck like many teachers do...
A paralegal donated the paper? Wow. That is like a sys admin posting a server password on a post-it note on the server rack...