- - "removal of aeroplanes from the skys for just two days over the US"
I can't accept that 2 days weather in 1 relatively small geographic area is a sufficiently large statistical sample to say anything even remotely reliable about climate.
Pick a random stock. Watch it for two days. Correlate with some important financial/political big news that is (probably) related, but we're not sure exactly how. Use that informaton to justify any conclusions about the world stock market over the next few years. You can get attention that way, but you won't be any more likely to make money on the stock market.
Just an opinion from someone that does statistics for a living.
The community is made up of individuals, but the fundamental principle of communism they individuals aren't important. As soon as individuals become important it isn't communism, it's something else.
Communism is the idea that the individual has no rights. The community has rights and governs. The individual is worthwhile only inasmuch as he supports the community.
Democracy is the idea that individuals can governs themselves. The responsibility of the state is to protect the individual's rights.
Perhaps not so well stated, but hopefully you can see that the two fundamentally nearly opposites.
How long were automobiles only toys for rich people? And Space travel is more expensive, even relatively. Let the rich play with it, fund it, etc. If necessary, eventually someone like Henry ford will come along and find a way to make it cheaper, because there is a lot more potential for profit in the mass market than in the super-rich market.
There are LOTS of places to go. Just because it will be difficult to live there at first (maybe for centuries, maybe even forever) doesn't mean that we can't, or shouldn't, go there. It is difficult to sustain human life in some neighborhoods. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to go there either.
From GMU Homepage "Recognized internationally for its innovation"
My soul mother (alma mater) changed from SSNs several years ago ('98) and the prevailing feeling in the news etc. was that they were behind the times then.
Quote: "A rural area paying less taxes is being propped up by a big city, by definition."
Being propped up would require them have an interchange of tax money. However, When the interchange of tax money is easier (the rural area is in the same county/state as the big city) the rural areas have HIGHER taxes. To re-explain: The rural areas that have more tax associations with big cities nearly always have more taxes than similar areas that have less less "propping up" from big cities.
The rural areas that are NOT tied to metro areas (thus can't be "propped up") have LOWER taxes.
For an example look at the communities in Essex County, NJ that are trying to create a new county that doesn't contain Newark, NJ. Those communities find that being "propped up" by the big city is too expensive.
Sure I post under a pseudonym, but I wouldn't spend $5 to keep you from knowing my real name, let alone thousands in legal costs and many (hundreds?) hours of my time.
We know that Iraq DID have WMD at one time, but they were taken/dismantled/whatever.
Sadaam was trying to convince the world that he had WMD. Why? I don't know.
Practically everyone with power to make policy (from both major parties) believed they were there.
We were, apparently, wrong.
There were other real reasons to attack Iraq. They were real, and were (still are) fairly obvoious, and even stated. The other reasons, however, were not as exciting, so didn't get as much mention (still don't). Whether or not all the reasons combined were sufficient to make the war worthwhile is another discussion.
Since the war started, though, our practical options have become severly limited.
Since the justice brought it up, I'm now intensely curious as to why John Doe is hiding.
I understand that there are some important principles involved here, but I'm not ready to accept that they are John Doe's overriding reasons to spend a lot of money on legal costs.
If the C-level execs don't understand enough to make sure that more than one person ALWAYS has access to all information then they will get cheated anyway because they won't be able to audit. I also expect C-level execs to and understand things they agree to (or get, and listen to, expert advice). If they can't do any better that that, they won't stay afloat in business long.
So, a company decides: "We agree that only one person has access to this critical info, and when he dies no one gets it. Don't make a contingency plan."
That sounds like a very good investment opportunity, after all, they probably make all their other business decisions equally intelligently.
Slashdot Mirror
- - "removal of aeroplanes from the skys for just two days over the US"
I can't accept that 2 days weather in 1 relatively small geographic area is a sufficiently large statistical sample to say anything even remotely reliable about climate.
Pick a random stock. Watch it for two days. Correlate with some important financial/political big news that is (probably) related, but we're not sure exactly how. Use that informaton to justify any conclusions about the world stock market over the next few years.
You can get attention that way, but you won't be any more likely to make money on the stock market.
Just an opinion from someone that does statistics for a living.
Um . . .
If it is indisputable how do you explain the disputations concerning it?
Need a more specific link. I couldn't find the info on buying slashdot stories.
The community is made up of individuals, but the fundamental principle of communism they individuals aren't important. As soon as individuals become important it isn't communism, it's something else.
The Prople are important, but a person isn't.
Communism is the idea that the individual has no rights. The community has rights and governs. The individual is worthwhile only inasmuch as he supports the community.
Democracy is the idea that individuals can governs themselves. The responsibility of the state is to protect the individual's rights.
Perhaps not so well stated, but hopefully you can see that the two fundamentally nearly opposites.
While it may be true that: "Real communist societies would not be controlled by 'an elite few."
It is also true, at least in the knowable past and the realistically imaginable future, there aren't any communist societies like that.
to repeat:
There's nothing sensitive on it
I believe the money will be used more efficiently and more novel solutions will be found if more groups are in competition with each other.
How long were automobiles only toys for rich people?
And Space travel is more expensive, even relatively.
Let the rich play with it, fund it, etc.
If necessary, eventually someone like Henry ford will come along and find a way to make it cheaper, because there is a lot more potential for profit in the mass market than in the super-rich market.
There are LOTS of places to go.
Just because it will be difficult to live there at first (maybe for centuries, maybe even forever) doesn't mean that we can't, or shouldn't, go there.
It is difficult to sustain human life in some neighborhoods. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to go there either.
Poor old Sol.
History suggests that most of the private companies that are trying to make a profit of space flight will fail.
(How many of the first 20 US auto makers are still around, and the first 20 airlines?)
However, I agree that more companies trying and more money spent developing will make it a viable business sooner.
Yes, but they (the people controlling the USSR) did it for power and prestige, which is why people want huge profits anyway.
I don't worry about read access to my home LAN, for apparenlty the same reasons as you. There's nothing sensitive on it that's not encrypted anyway.
I worry about WRITE access.
There are three basic kinds of irony.
1. Dramatic Irony
2. Situational Irony
3. Verbal Irony (aka Sarcasm)
I'm sure that there are other ways to classify different kinds of irony, but a high school English class can only go so far.
From GMU Homepage "Recognized internationally for its innovation"
My soul mother (alma mater) changed from SSNs several years ago ('98) and the prevailing feeling in the news etc. was that they were behind the times then.
Is innovation years late really innovation?
One more time, a little slower, just for you.
Quote: "A rural area paying less taxes is being propped up by a big city, by definition."
Being propped up would require them have an interchange of tax money.
However, When the interchange of tax money is easier (the rural area is in the same county/state as the big city) the rural areas have HIGHER taxes.
To re-explain: The rural areas that have more tax associations with big cities nearly always have more taxes than similar areas that have less less "propping up" from big cities.
The rural areas that are NOT tied to metro areas (thus can't be "propped up") have LOWER taxes.
For an example look at the communities in Essex County, NJ that are trying to create a new county that doesn't contain Newark, NJ. Those communities find that being "propped up" by the big city is too expensive.
Sure I post under a pseudonym, but I wouldn't spend $5 to keep you from knowing my real name, let alone thousands in legal costs and many (hundreds?) hours of my time.
We know that Iraq DID have WMD at one time, but they were taken/dismantled/whatever.
Sadaam was trying to convince the world that he had WMD. Why? I don't know.
Practically everyone with power to make policy (from both major parties) believed they were there.
We were, apparently, wrong.
There were other real reasons to attack Iraq.
They were real, and were (still are) fairly obvoious, and even stated.
The other reasons, however, were not as exciting, so didn't get as much mention (still don't).
Whether or not all the reasons combined were sufficient to make the war worthwhile is another discussion.
Since the war started, though, our practical options have become severly limited.
Since the justice brought it up, I'm now intensely curious as to why John Doe is hiding.
I understand that there are some important principles involved here, but I'm not ready to accept that they are John Doe's overriding reasons to spend a lot of money on legal costs.
(Maybe that's a little cynical.)
Read it again.
Rural areas that are NOT being "propped up" by big cities pay less taxes.
If the C-level execs don't understand enough to make sure that more than one person ALWAYS has access to all information then they will get cheated anyway because they won't be able to audit.
I also expect C-level execs to and understand things they agree to (or get, and listen to, expert advice).
If they can't do any better that that, they won't stay afloat in business long.
I work for a large company that owns my ideas, but they (officially) will give me a percentage of profit from things that I come up with.
Hammers don't have ethics, but there are ethics that govern (or should) our use of hammers.
So, a company decides:
"We agree that only one person has access to this critical info, and when he dies no one gets it. Don't make a contingency plan."
That sounds like a very good investment opportunity, after all, they probably make all their other business decisions equally intelligently.