Except there is no evolutionary pressure to select for thicker skulls. The injuries cause problems long after the players have ended their career and have had their kids.
Ticker symbol(s). Emerging markets have done well, but I find it hard to believe that your returns have been so consistent for 12 years. 2008 was a real bear market in the emerging markets. Many funds lost 40% plus, even the more conservative ones.
Slight correction. My return was about 12% for the final 10 months of 2012. This is money I had rolled over from a prior employer so had full control for only the 12 months. I was in index funds before that as well, but can't easily roll those gains into the numbers I reported.
In an efficient market, all players have the same information and you cannot gain additional return without additional risk. And the fact is that unless you are an insider, you won't even meet the optimum risk/return frontier. I'm willing to bet if we looked at your returns, you'd be well below the frontier. It is good that you but and hold, but the downside is that it takes a handful of bad picks to bring you down and bring you down hard
My approach guarantees I will make market returns with average risk. Doing as well as the market is not a crime and is quite good. I pay almost no management fees. Even in my non-tax sheltered accounts I pay almost no taxes because nothing is realized. Brokerage fees are similarly insignificant. Anyone who claims to consistently beat those returns is taking additional risk or plain out not understanding their real returns. On top of it all, I spend a whopping zero minutes a week doing research as I really don't have to. And you can research your funds all day long, but you'll never have the insider info a lot of private analysts have and which affect the market.
I am invested in the US mostly, with significant minorities in Europe and Hong Kong. My total return in 2012 was just a shade under 12%. Not bad for a low risk strategy.
In fine Slashdot tradition, let's hear from 52 people telling us that correlation does not imply causation and that only people with brain trauma or predisposed to it play football.
There are no religious grounds here. I am Christian, have read the Bible front to back a couple of times and don't recall any prohibition on flu shots. Basically this person has a personal conviction against flu shots. That is absolutely fine. However, that means the nurses are in violation of company rules which make a lot of sense. It is the hospital's right to fire them.
FTA: "While 2008 is famous for a huge summer spike that drove the average above $4 a gallon, price weren’t as consistently high as this year, leaving 2008 in third place overall at $3.25."
I think you are thinking of 2008 as your "couple of years ago", and the article does a good job of talking about that.
A 90 second search revealed the following "A common choice is to choose units such that the maximum possible efficacy, 683 lm/W, corresponds to an efficiency of 100%"
Is there a theoretical maximum lumens / watt ratio? My 30 second search on Google does't show any relationship between the two terms, but I have to imagine there is some type of maximum...
Title: New IE Vulnerability Used In Targeted Attacks; IE9, IE10 Users Safe Sentence Two: While IE9 and IE10 are not affected, versions IE6, IE7, and IE8 are Then: "We are actively investigating reports of a small, targeted issue affecting Internet Explorer 6-8," Then: People using Internet Explorer 9-10 are not impacted.""
Could someone please tell me which versions are vulnerable and which ones are not?
Although acceleration is not the same as speed, AC is right. Even if you assume the probe's weight is negligible, you begin to run into issues with thrust to weight of fuel. Over the five years cited in this story, the ion thruster consisting of fuel only would get you to 75km/s, or about a 14,000 year flight to alpha centauri. Scaling up doesn't help much as the ion thruster has to accelerate a larger mass.
Just realized how careless I was. My calcs assume acceleration from propulsion only. Voyager 1 took up much less fuel but is going at a pretty good clip due to gravitational assists. So the comparison is not apples-to-apples. Voyager 1 has used about 80 kg of mass to get to its current speed, but a good part of that was due to energy from being placed in orbit and from a slingshot around Jupiter.
Most likely this thing was not aboard any ship or probe or any other object in outer space. This thing is being developed, so it is likely attached to some instruments in a lab where they can monitor it continually and make sure there aren't any problems. Likely they shut it down periodically to look for any problems, signs of breakdown or other signs that this cannot be scaled up for any reason.
So how far and how fast are irrelevant. There are enough numbers in the summary that you can do your own calculation on any object you like.
This ion thruster placed on Voyager 1 would have taken it up to 37 km/s over 5 years compared to the 17km/s it is going now. Not part of my calculations is that Voyager 1 would have been slightly lighter due to the reduced fuel load. i don't have exact enough numbers to do the calc, but it would have likely been in the low 40's km/s.
Whoops. I guess I am guilty of quickly scanning. I'd assumed that because the title was about Israel that the first amount shown would be for the cost to Israel. Please mod my OP down.
Israel has about the population of NYC and it will cost $140 Billion? We are talking $20,000 per person which seems incredibly high, especially when you consider the small amount of land. How can it possibly cost this much?
You are kinda right. When a monopoly or other form of heavily restricted competition and/or there is a public good that goes beyond a strict consumer/supplier relationship, then you are right in that we should not be left to the mercy of the suppliers. Where I think you are wrong is that this does not spell out "capitalism doesn't belong". You even say so later in your post that "We need regulation". So, capitalism DOES belong, but it should be regulated to ensure it conforms with the broader public good.
No, GP is correct. The summary is just plain awful. It makes it sound like there is some latent hand gene sequences in fish that were just waiting to be activated. If this were found to be true, then no one could argue against the existence of God.
Can I try? I could use $500. If you follow me for a week will you give me $3,500? I am sure you could get me for some non-felonies on me as i do drive and am sure there are some things you could find there. But a felony? Doubt it.
I am about 40 years old, and for most of my life considered homosexuals to be somehow inferior with through genetics or lifestyle choice. My world view has changed quite a bit, mostly by seeing real-world homosexuals, and strangely enough a closeted homosexual who claimed to be "cured".
It is hard to put a date on when my view changed, but now I see how wrong I was and fully support same-sex marriage and make sure to show my support as a way of undoing some of the ignorance I helped spread.
In the same way, we have an opportunity to not just pardon Turing, but express just how wrong we were. It will never erase the harm, but it will help heal the wound.
And as far as your "elucidating a definition", here was the definition you gave originally "Hate speech is pretty easily classified by HATE against other groups of PEOPLE".
Do you also define a farmer as "someone who farms"? In either case, the definition isn't too helpful.
If you are defining hate speech as "inciting to violence" that is one thing. But that ISN'T the definition of hate speech You seem to weave in and out of the real definition. If I say "I hate Catholics and don't think they should be allowed in politics", that is defined as "hate speech" but is allowed in the United States. If I say "I hate Catholics and they should die", then that is inciting to violence and is NOT allowed in the United States
You then say it is very easy to define hate speech when you fail to do so yourself. And, frankly, even intelligent folks have a hard time doing so. There was a European case against a pastor who preached on homosexuality. One court found he violated hate speech laws. Another found the opposite. Who is right? Despite your earlier claims, it is often in the eye of the beholder.
And what groups are protected? Since you claim to be an expert (despite contradicting yourself and failing to define the term when claiming to do so), you would know that generally consensus is around race and religion. Sexual orientation sometimes. Political ideology sometimes. In some countries expressing hatred toward the government is also prohibited. Which definition is right? Does there have to be an incitement to violence? Who defines what constitutes incitement?
So sorry, you can throw out insults all day like you do in the majority of your posts, but that doesn't make you arguments any more valid.
I can see reality just fine, it is you who have the problem. I am free to hate who I want to hate and express that hatred. I may not advocate violence, but I am free to denounce any group I like to.
I hate the Westboro Church and its members. Under your definition, that statement should be illegal as it falls under "religion". What is most sad about you is that you present yourself as though you think your IQ is much higher than those you are talking to. In my case, I can almost certainly guarantee you are wrong.
Even hate against people is protected speech and should remain so. The part folks like you seem to have missed in history is that once you have the camel's nose in your tent, the rest of the camel follows. Pretty soon you won't be able to say anything negative about a different group of people on the grounds that it is "hate speech". You are so naive as to think it is a very cut and dry line between "hate speech" and "not hate speech", but the reality is that like porn, it is in the eye of the beholder.
Slashdot Mirror
Except there is no evolutionary pressure to select for thicker skulls. The injuries cause problems long after the players have ended their career and have had their kids.
Ticker symbol(s). Emerging markets have done well, but I find it hard to believe that your returns have been so consistent for 12 years. 2008 was a real bear market in the emerging markets. Many funds lost 40% plus, even the more conservative ones.
Slight correction. My return was about 12% for the final 10 months of 2012. This is money I had rolled over from a prior employer so had full control for only the 12 months. I was in index funds before that as well, but can't easily roll those gains into the numbers I reported.
In an efficient market, all players have the same information and you cannot gain additional return without additional risk. And the fact is that unless you are an insider, you won't even meet the optimum risk/return frontier. I'm willing to bet if we looked at your returns, you'd be well below the frontier. It is good that you but and hold, but the downside is that it takes a handful of bad picks to bring you down and bring you down hard
My approach guarantees I will make market returns with average risk. Doing as well as the market is not a crime and is quite good. I pay almost no management fees. Even in my non-tax sheltered accounts I pay almost no taxes because nothing is realized. Brokerage fees are similarly insignificant. Anyone who claims to consistently beat those returns is taking additional risk or plain out not understanding their real returns. On top of it all, I spend a whopping zero minutes a week doing research as I really don't have to. And you can research your funds all day long, but you'll never have the insider info a lot of private analysts have and which affect the market.
I am invested in the US mostly, with significant minorities in Europe and Hong Kong. My total return in 2012 was just a shade under 12%. Not bad for a low risk strategy.
In fine Slashdot tradition, let's hear from 52 people telling us that correlation does not imply causation and that only people with brain trauma or predisposed to it play football.
There are no religious grounds here. I am Christian, have read the Bible front to back a couple of times and don't recall any prohibition on flu shots. Basically this person has a personal conviction against flu shots. That is absolutely fine. However, that means the nurses are in violation of company rules which make a lot of sense. It is the hospital's right to fire them.
No controversy here.
FTA: "While 2008 is famous for a huge summer spike that drove the average above $4 a gallon, price weren’t as consistently high as this year, leaving 2008 in third place overall at $3.25."
I think you are thinking of 2008 as your "couple of years ago", and the article does a good job of talking about that.
A 90 second search revealed the following "A common choice is to choose units such that the maximum possible efficacy, 683 lm/W, corresponds to an efficiency of 100%"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy
Is there a theoretical maximum lumens / watt ratio? My 30 second search on Google does't show any relationship between the two terms, but I have to imagine there is some type of maximum...
It is called a joke. Sorry you didn't get it, but I promise not to make fun of slow individuals like yourself.
Title: New IE Vulnerability Used In Targeted Attacks; IE9, IE10 Users Safe
Sentence Two: While IE9 and IE10 are not affected, versions IE6, IE7, and IE8 are
Then: "We are actively investigating reports of a small, targeted issue affecting Internet Explorer 6-8,"
Then: People using Internet Explorer 9-10 are not impacted.""
Could someone please tell me which versions are vulnerable and which ones are not?
Although acceleration is not the same as speed, AC is right. Even if you assume the probe's weight is negligible, you begin to run into issues with thrust to weight of fuel. Over the five years cited in this story, the ion thruster consisting of fuel only would get you to 75km/s, or about a 14,000 year flight to alpha centauri. Scaling up doesn't help much as the ion thruster has to accelerate a larger mass.
Just realized how careless I was. My calcs assume acceleration from propulsion only. Voyager 1 took up much less fuel but is going at a pretty good clip due to gravitational assists. So the comparison is not apples-to-apples. Voyager 1 has used about 80 kg of mass to get to its current speed, but a good part of that was due to energy from being placed in orbit and from a slingshot around Jupiter.
Most likely this thing was not aboard any ship or probe or any other object in outer space. This thing is being developed, so it is likely attached to some instruments in a lab where they can monitor it continually and make sure there aren't any problems. Likely they shut it down periodically to look for any problems, signs of breakdown or other signs that this cannot be scaled up for any reason.
So how far and how fast are irrelevant. There are enough numbers in the summary that you can do your own calculation on any object you like.
This ion thruster placed on Voyager 1 would have taken it up to 37 km/s over 5 years compared to the 17km/s it is going now. Not part of my calculations is that Voyager 1 would have been slightly lighter due to the reduced fuel load. i don't have exact enough numbers to do the calc, but it would have likely been in the low 40's km/s.
Whoops. I guess I am guilty of quickly scanning. I'd assumed that because the title was about Israel that the first amount shown would be for the cost to Israel. Please mod my OP down.
Israel has about the population of NYC and it will cost $140 Billion? We are talking $20,000 per person which seems incredibly high, especially when you consider the small amount of land. How can it possibly cost this much?
You are kinda right. When a monopoly or other form of heavily restricted competition and/or there is a public good that goes beyond a strict consumer/supplier relationship, then you are right in that we should not be left to the mercy of the suppliers. Where I think you are wrong is that this does not spell out "capitalism doesn't belong". You even say so later in your post that "We need regulation". So, capitalism DOES belong, but it should be regulated to ensure it conforms with the broader public good.
No, GP is correct. The summary is just plain awful. It makes it sound like there is some latent hand gene sequences in fish that were just waiting to be activated. If this were found to be true, then no one could argue against the existence of God.
Can I try? I could use $500. If you follow me for a week will you give me $3,500? I am sure you could get me for some non-felonies on me as i do drive and am sure there are some things you could find there. But a felony? Doubt it.
I am about 40 years old, and for most of my life considered homosexuals to be somehow inferior with through genetics or lifestyle choice. My world view has changed quite a bit, mostly by seeing real-world homosexuals, and strangely enough a closeted homosexual who claimed to be "cured".
It is hard to put a date on when my view changed, but now I see how wrong I was and fully support same-sex marriage and make sure to show my support as a way of undoing some of the ignorance I helped spread.
In the same way, we have an opportunity to not just pardon Turing, but express just how wrong we were. It will never erase the harm, but it will help heal the wound.
You think yourself far more intelligent than you are, but at least you admit to being a troll. Good day.
And as far as your "elucidating a definition", here was the definition you gave originally "Hate speech is pretty easily classified by HATE against other groups of PEOPLE".
Do you also define a farmer as "someone who farms"? In either case, the definition isn't too helpful.
If you are defining hate speech as "inciting to violence" that is one thing. But that ISN'T the definition of hate speech You seem to weave in and out of the real definition. If I say "I hate Catholics and don't think they should be allowed in politics", that is defined as "hate speech" but is allowed in the United States. If I say "I hate Catholics and they should die", then that is inciting to violence and is NOT allowed in the United States
You then say it is very easy to define hate speech when you fail to do so yourself. And, frankly, even intelligent folks have a hard time doing so. There was a European case against a pastor who preached on homosexuality. One court found he violated hate speech laws. Another found the opposite. Who is right? Despite your earlier claims, it is often in the eye of the beholder.
And what groups are protected? Since you claim to be an expert (despite contradicting yourself and failing to define the term when claiming to do so), you would know that generally consensus is around race and religion. Sexual orientation sometimes. Political ideology sometimes. In some countries expressing hatred toward the government is also prohibited. Which definition is right? Does there have to be an incitement to violence? Who defines what constitutes incitement?
So sorry, you can throw out insults all day like you do in the majority of your posts, but that doesn't make you arguments any more valid.
No, you aren't a nice person.
I can see reality just fine, it is you who have the problem. I am free to hate who I want to hate and express that hatred. I may not advocate violence, but I am free to denounce any group I like to.
I hate the Westboro Church and its members. Under your definition, that statement should be illegal as it falls under "religion". What is most sad about you is that you present yourself as though you think your IQ is much higher than those you are talking to. In my case, I can almost certainly guarantee you are wrong.
Boy, aren't you a nice person.
Even hate against people is protected speech and should remain so. The part folks like you seem to have missed in history is that once you have the camel's nose in your tent, the rest of the camel follows. Pretty soon you won't be able to say anything negative about a different group of people on the grounds that it is "hate speech". You are so naive as to think it is a very cut and dry line between "hate speech" and "not hate speech", but the reality is that like porn, it is in the eye of the beholder.