It is not as if you ever see what is done with your paper ballot. And if you want everyone's vote to be publicly visible, you open the door to bribery and intimidation.
Canada has the same type of first-past-the-post nonsense. Here we have parties with very uneven regional support, so people in various parts of the country feel disenfranchised.
Even if you seriously intimidate everyone, some people are bound to vote differently just by mistake. 100% out of 24 million is just plain making up the results.
It depends on the car of course. There is an optimal speed, different for each model. My 95 Mustang got the best mileage cruising at a steady 75mph on freeways with little traffic. 65 was measurably worse, as was 80. Cruising along the beach at 10mph gave me about 4 m/gal.
Wind resistance is complicated and depends on cross section as well as shape, it's not a simple polynomial. Plus, there is other resistance to consider, friction with the ground basically.
I don't know about the New Scientist in particular, but grammar is important so you can tell what the article is saying. Presenting precise technical information doesn't work without precise language. With incorrect grammar, an article can become ambiguous.
If you require identical hardware, some might complain that it's more suited to a particular system. Give them a fixed amount of money for the server. Or a fixed amount of other resources that might be the bottleneck (power, floorspace, maintenance time/month,...)
$50 a year is ok if you read one newspaper, as people did in the good old days. Today, I read at least 7 online papers every day. When there is something special going on, I look for newspapers in
the region. That is not counting things like slashdot, which I read for entertainment value.
What the NYT does with their relatively high prices and nosy registration is narrow their audience. Perhaps that is what they are trying to do, or perhaps they are stuck in the days when an informed person defined themselves by which newspaper they read.
There seems to me a fundamental problem with a single number for this purpose. Some sources are low-trust because the are unknowns, others because the have an established agenda, still others because they are habitually dishonest. Even worse, say you have the number 1 quality source about disk drives, do you now trust them about gardening tips?
The short version is the stock is worth whatever someone else is willing to pay you for it. There is no intrinsic value that anyone _has_ to pay you. Stock traders buy and sell for the stupidest reasons.
Yes of course it is more complicated. I was just answering the point of a previous poster that a big plane automatically means more fuel will be burned.
These planes will be better for very long distance flights. But for a lot of passengers, the service will be worse. Airlines like the larg hub airports mainly because scheduling is easier, from a passenger end-to-end travel time point of view they suck.
There seems to be a misconception in the legal and business worlds that when you can assign blame for a failure in a predetermined way, that the risk of failure then becomes zero.
Two small points of disagreement with your reasoned argument:
Indian engineers are probably fairly well paid, considering their cost of living,
If the US doesn't help Mexico achieve a reasonable standard of living (no matter who is at fault for the lack of it), then Mexico will come to the US. Those people have a legitimate reason, you can't stop them.
When you write bad code, good comments won't save you. The other way can sometimes work. Spending all your time on comments seems like only talking about solving an engineering problem, not actually doing it.
I think they should be considered rights, since people have created these things that the public finds useful. Having created them should give you more of a right to them than, say, squatting on them as you do with real estate.
Having said that, perhaps we should give these rights only to natural persons, not corporations.
Slashdot Mirror
Before IBM came to the scene, you mean about 1850 or so Apple was doing these innovative things? Check your calendar.
It is not as if you ever see what is done with your paper ballot. And if you want everyone's vote to be publicly visible, you open the door to bribery and intimidation.
Canada has the same type of first-past-the-post nonsense. Here we have parties with very uneven regional support, so people in various parts of the country feel disenfranchised.
Also, the Dutch revolution (separation from Spain and the empire) was an early model for the american revolution.
No doubt those numbers are based on the assumption that these people have positive productivity while at work. I'm not buying that.
Even if you seriously intimidate everyone, some people are bound to vote differently just by mistake. 100% out of 24 million is just plain making up the results.
It depends on the car of course. There is an optimal speed, different for each model. My 95 Mustang got the best mileage cruising at a steady 75mph on freeways with little traffic. 65 was measurably worse, as was 80. Cruising along the beach at 10mph gave me about 4 m/gal. Wind resistance is complicated and depends on cross section as well as shape, it's not a simple polynomial. Plus, there is other resistance to consider, friction with the ground basically.
Ah, but this is the common man's opportunity to make his voice heard. Or something.
I don't know about the New Scientist in particular, but grammar is important so you can tell what the article is saying. Presenting precise technical information doesn't work without precise language. With incorrect grammar, an article can become ambiguous.
If you require identical hardware, some might complain that it's more suited to a particular system. Give them a fixed amount of money for the server. Or a fixed amount of other resources that might be the bottleneck (power, floorspace, maintenance time/month,...)
$50 a year is ok if you read one newspaper, as people did in the good old days. Today, I read at least 7 online papers every day. When there is something special going on, I look for newspapers in the region. That is not counting things like slashdot, which I read for entertainment value.
What the NYT does with their relatively high prices and nosy registration is narrow their audience. Perhaps that is what they are trying to do, or perhaps they are stuck in the days when an informed person defined themselves by which newspaper they read.
They could make it look like an endagered kind of tree, and put a fake green party member up there defending it.
There seems to me a fundamental problem with a single number for this purpose. Some sources are low-trust because the are unknowns, others because the have an established agenda, still others because they are habitually dishonest. Even worse, say you have the number 1 quality source about disk drives, do you now trust them about gardening tips?
This is a real release now, not an accidental shipment? I know Apple is ahead of everyone, including themselves, so we best check.
But you won't be a hardware architect in the sense that you can design hardware architecture. It takes more than some certifications.
Well, I did submit a little news story about it, but the editors kept it pending until they had this one written up.
The short version is the stock is worth whatever someone else is willing to pay you for it. There is no intrinsic value that anyone _has_ to pay you. Stock traders buy and sell for the stupidest reasons.
Yes of course it is more complicated. I was just answering the point of a previous poster that a big plane automatically means more fuel will be burned. These planes will be better for very long distance flights. But for a lot of passengers, the service will be worse. Airlines like the larg hub airports mainly because scheduling is easier, from a passenger end-to-end travel time point of view they suck.
There seems to be a misconception in the legal and business worlds that when you can assign blame for a failure in a predetermined way, that the risk of failure then becomes zero.
Flying 500 people in one big airplane is more efficient than 250 each in 2 planes. But then, by some people's reasoning, people should just stay home.
Indian engineers are probably fairly well paid, considering their cost of living,
If the US doesn't help Mexico achieve a reasonable standard of living (no matter who is at fault for the lack of it), then Mexico will come to the US. Those people have a legitimate reason, you can't stop them.
When you write bad code, good comments won't save you. The other way can sometimes work. Spending all your time on comments seems like only talking about solving an engineering problem, not actually doing it.
I think they should be considered rights, since people have created these things that the public finds useful. Having created them should give you more of a right to them than, say, squatting on them as you do with real estate.
Having said that, perhaps we should give these rights only to natural persons, not corporations.
In most cases we are talking about here, an application should not be able to crash an operating system, even if it tries.
Plus, it supports the claim of the Apple fan club that Apple already had invented this product earlier.