Yes, wanting "pure" water is pretty nuts. I mean, seriously, what could possibly go wrong with adding "stuff" to water? It's not like we've been wrong about stuff we add turning out to be harmful before. And, clearly, we've done long-term/human lifetime tests to make sure adding it to our water is entirely safe with no side effects. Right?
If we haven't, then it's not nuts to prefer NOT to add it. And it's definitely not nuts to prefer to have the government leave the water alone. If the government wants us to have fluoride, then try mandating that we all take fluoride daily - I'm sure that would go over well:) That's basically what they're doing, only a bit more subtly.
So you are arguing that humans cannot fully accurately conceive of the "Creator entity," as the GP referred to "God." Ok, fine. Couldn't I make the *exact same argument* about basically all of science? How can humans, as non-creators, actually fully accurately understand any physics? So I guess we should pretty much throw out all science, because, after all, if we're not 100% certain that it is 100% accurate, then the entire thing is worthless.
Or perhaps it's possible to have a "reasonably accurate" conception based on what we are reasonably sure of knowing?
Really, this is getting into epistemology arguments. How do we know that we know ANYTHING accurately?
I would also questions how you are saying that it is statistically impossible (which implies that you can mathematically prove it is impossible) that, regardless of revelation, knowledge, etc., we can have a correct conception of God. You seem to be implying that we can mathematically prove that we CANNOT know something? Not that it's difficult or improbable, but that we CANNOT know... by definition, somehow? Would this be a similar argument to me saying it's statistically impossible for you to know whether or not the reality, as perceived by you, is actually real?
"Hack" ? Let's see... Anna Ijjas is a post-doc student at Harvard in astrophysics. Abraham Loeb is a professor at Harvard in astrophysics and has 400 papers published and has tons of awards/recognitions/honors/whatever. Paul Steinhardt is the "Albert Einstein" Professor of Science at Princeton, Ph.D. in physics from Harvard.
You are thus saying huge companies with litigation groups like Samsung and Foxconn just blindly believe the FUD about non-existent ("mythical") patents and are willing to pay money... for something that doesn't exist? Either Microsoft has patents, or Samsung and Foxconn are insanely stupid and aren't requiring Microsoft to show them why they legally have to pay the licensing fees. I have a hard time believing the latter.
Perhaps MS is hiding which patents precisely so that the OSS community doesn't fix it. Dirty trick, perhaps, sure. But that doesn't mean the patents they are claiming to have are mythical.
There's a long list of companies, including Samsung, apparently. You really think they can't afford lawyers to stand up to Microsoft? Or HTC?
While I don't particularly like the insane patent wars... I'm not sure Microsoft isn't on fairly solid "patent" footing. I seriously doubt that a company as big as Samsung or Foxconn *actually* just say "oh, okay Microsoft, even though those patents clearly aren't valid and clearly have no application here, we'll pay you anyways."
You appear to have left out "health care" from the "welfare" part, because the graph you got your numbers from didn't call health care "welfare." If you put health care back in - at least, medicaid type stuff - you get an additional ~$900b. In fact, "Defense" and "Health care" have the same numbers. So, put "health care" into "welfare" and you get 24% defense vs. 35% welfare/health care.
This only includes medical service (seniors) and "vendor payments (welfare)"... the latter includes things like "grants to states for Medicaid" (in fact, that's the biggest contributor to that part), which I definitely would include in "welfare."
If I were interested in a... watch computer:)... I would be quite glad Microsoft is jumping in, too. Microsoft HAS the capability to produce a good product. So do Apple, Google, and Samsung.
Innovation does not necessarily mean developing something no one else is doing; it could mean making a better "same" product than anyone else. Isn't that what everyone adored Apple for with the iPod and iPhone (and, supposedly, the iPad)? All of them existed before, but they presumably made a consumer-friendly, good product out of the tech. I really do think Microsoft COULD do that, too, just as A/G/S could. Frankly, I hope they do, too, because I would like to see competition against Apple and Google:) hehe
Truely rural america still consists of vast swathes of farmland or near-virgin territory, dotted around with small towns and homesteads.
Correct, I'm not *really* rural, I thought "semi-rural" was an okay description. I wouldn't say I'm suburban though, at least not in the California (or, I should say, not in the "coastal" and "near large cities" California definition). Basically all the houses in my area have at least one acre, most have 2 to 4, some have upwards of 10-15 or even 20. That's pretty big for this area as a whole, until you get out in farming communities. So, no, not *really* rural... but, apparently, we're rural enough that Verizon does not really care. I think there's money to be made out here, even if it was just DSL... but they don't even want to do that much. (I'm trying again, though; apparently, resellers can sometimes bug the managing telecom enough that they replace the loading coils).
Then why are you posting a comment on what amounts to a social news site, Slashdot? Or maybe "email" and "telephone" aren't quite enough and you actually do use more:)
This. The "move to the city if you require internet access" seems the modern equivalent of "move to the city if you require electricity" or telephones or what-have-you... if it was technically impossible or even difficult to get internet access out to rural areas, fine. But it's NOT. It's relatively easy. It's the same argument that should be used against telecoms capping mobile data. It's not a hard problem to solve; it's just that they don't do it... and slashdotters would likely get upset if the answer was "hey, if you don't like Verizon, just move to Canada! You have a choice."
Forcing the choice between semi-rural, even, and urban living is pretty silly when it's entirely technically feasible... even financially feasible. It's almost like saying that if you want a good education for your kids, just move to the city. Rural people don't need education, they just farm!...
I actually live a couple miles from a commuter city to Silicon Valley. I have three options - Verizon mobile, LOS wireless (which is what I have, and it's expensive - $160/mo for 1.5mbps down/384k up), or Satellite. I'm also technically within the required distance for 1.5mbps DSL, but there's a load coil on the line somewhere. I live in a semi-rural community with many $1m+ homes. The ironic part is that it took a local DSL company to tell me this; Verizon, of course, couldn't say why they couldn't give me DSL. Maybe this whole monopoly thing isn't a good idea...
Not... exactly. They renamed the "old" A123 to B456... the "old" one meaning the small group that is left to dismantle the company, I guess, basically. The "new" A123 (the part that actually transferred) is still A123. To avoid having two A123s, they renamed one of them.
Re: Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans
on
Let Them Eat Teslas
·
· Score: 1
But aren't K-12 and High Schools totally publicly funded? And look how good they are/how inexpensive/how inefficient/how balanced the pay-scales are. (sarcasm)
What's strange is that... I went to one of those private, church/religious schools. Tuition was expensive, but not THAT expensive... and the profs? They make way less than my public junior college economics professor. And they almost all had Ph.D.'s in their field. In fact, every one of my music profs had Ph.D.'s in music, whether it was choral conducting, music education, theory and composition, music history, piano pedagogy, piano performance, etc.
Yet they worked for significantly less, as did the administrators... and there weren't even that many administrators.
Well, that's true. I assume he is a native English speaker, and I'm American, and Slashdot is American, so it was the first guess. But I could substitute "Americans" with "native English speakers"...:)
Please ignore those Americans who forget there are other languages spoken in the world and that, typically, those other-language speakers actually know English quite well...
(I am on a teleconference right now with some French Canadians and Danes... all speaking English...)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, wanting "pure" water is pretty nuts. I mean, seriously, what could possibly go wrong with adding "stuff" to water? It's not like we've been wrong about stuff we add turning out to be harmful before. And, clearly, we've done long-term/human lifetime tests to make sure adding it to our water is entirely safe with no side effects. Right?
If we haven't, then it's not nuts to prefer NOT to add it. And it's definitely not nuts to prefer to have the government leave the water alone. If the government wants us to have fluoride, then try mandating that we all take fluoride daily - I'm sure that would go over well :) That's basically what they're doing, only a bit more subtly.
So you are arguing that humans cannot fully accurately conceive of the "Creator entity," as the GP referred to "God." Ok, fine. Couldn't I make the *exact same argument* about basically all of science? How can humans, as non-creators, actually fully accurately understand any physics? So I guess we should pretty much throw out all science, because, after all, if we're not 100% certain that it is 100% accurate, then the entire thing is worthless.
Or perhaps it's possible to have a "reasonably accurate" conception based on what we are reasonably sure of knowing?
Really, this is getting into epistemology arguments. How do we know that we know ANYTHING accurately?
I would also questions how you are saying that it is statistically impossible (which implies that you can mathematically prove it is impossible) that, regardless of revelation, knowledge, etc., we can have a correct conception of God. You seem to be implying that we can mathematically prove that we CANNOT know something? Not that it's difficult or improbable, but that we CANNOT know ... by definition, somehow? Would this be a similar argument to me saying it's statistically impossible for you to know whether or not the reality, as perceived by you, is actually real?
I can't tell if you're serious.
"Hack" ? Let's see ... Anna Ijjas is a post-doc student at Harvard in astrophysics. Abraham Loeb is a professor at Harvard in astrophysics and has 400 papers published and has tons of awards/recognitions/honors/whatever. Paul Steinhardt is the "Albert Einstein" Professor of Science at Princeton, Ph.D. in physics from Harvard.
Clearly they are all hacks.
You are thus saying huge companies with litigation groups like Samsung and Foxconn just blindly believe the FUD about non-existent ("mythical") patents and are willing to pay money ... for something that doesn't exist? Either Microsoft has patents, or Samsung and Foxconn are insanely stupid and aren't requiring Microsoft to show them why they legally have to pay the licensing fees. I have a hard time believing the latter.
Perhaps MS is hiding which patents precisely so that the OSS community doesn't fix it. Dirty trick, perhaps, sure. But that doesn't mean the patents they are claiming to have are mythical.
There's a long list of companies, including Samsung, apparently. You really think they can't afford lawyers to stand up to Microsoft? Or HTC?
While I don't particularly like the insane patent wars ... I'm not sure Microsoft isn't on fairly solid "patent" footing. I seriously doubt that a company as big as Samsung or Foxconn *actually* just say "oh, okay Microsoft, even though those patents clearly aren't valid and clearly have no application here, we'll pay you anyways."
You appear to have left out "health care" from the "welfare" part, because the graph you got your numbers from didn't call health care "welfare." If you put health care back in - at least, medicaid type stuff - you get an additional ~$900b. In fact, "Defense" and "Health care" have the same numbers. So, put "health care" into "welfare" and you get 24% defense vs. 35% welfare/health care.
This only includes medical service (seniors) and "vendor payments (welfare)" ... the latter includes things like "grants to states for Medicaid" (in fact, that's the biggest contributor to that part), which I definitely would include in "welfare."
What does Belgium do when it gets loose? Tear up the neighbor's lawn? ;)
(frying/searing doesn't actually do that)
There's a constitution in the way, so it has to be (okay, well, it SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE) a Constitutional amendment.
But that hasn't stopped anyone lately, it seems.
If I were interested in a ... watch computer :) ... I would be quite glad Microsoft is jumping in, too. Microsoft HAS the capability to produce a good product. So do Apple, Google, and Samsung.
Innovation does not necessarily mean developing something no one else is doing; it could mean making a better "same" product than anyone else. Isn't that what everyone adored Apple for with the iPod and iPhone (and, supposedly, the iPad)? All of them existed before, but they presumably made a consumer-friendly, good product out of the tech. I really do think Microsoft COULD do that, too, just as A/G/S could. Frankly, I hope they do, too, because I would like to see competition against Apple and Google :) hehe
Truely rural america still consists of vast swathes of farmland or near-virgin territory, dotted around with small towns and homesteads.
Correct, I'm not *really* rural, I thought "semi-rural" was an okay description. I wouldn't say I'm suburban though, at least not in the California (or, I should say, not in the "coastal" and "near large cities" California definition). Basically all the houses in my area have at least one acre, most have 2 to 4, some have upwards of 10-15 or even 20. That's pretty big for this area as a whole, until you get out in farming communities. So, no, not *really* rural ... but, apparently, we're rural enough that Verizon does not really care. I think there's money to be made out here, even if it was just DSL... but they don't even want to do that much. (I'm trying again, though; apparently, resellers can sometimes bug the managing telecom enough that they replace the loading coils).
Then why are you posting a comment on what amounts to a social news site, Slashdot? Or maybe "email" and "telephone" aren't quite enough and you actually do use more :)
They're too busy worrying about their financials. All their mortgages are under water.
Minesweeper.
Just wonder what BofA [would] have to do to outmatch the busted lunch of Simcity 5.
Foreclose on some basements.
This. The "move to the city if you require internet access" seems the modern equivalent of "move to the city if you require electricity" or telephones or what-have-you... if it was technically impossible or even difficult to get internet access out to rural areas, fine. But it's NOT. It's relatively easy. It's the same argument that should be used against telecoms capping mobile data. It's not a hard problem to solve; it's just that they don't do it... and slashdotters would likely get upset if the answer was "hey, if you don't like Verizon, just move to Canada! You have a choice."
Forcing the choice between semi-rural, even, and urban living is pretty silly when it's entirely technically feasible... even financially feasible. It's almost like saying that if you want a good education for your kids, just move to the city. Rural people don't need education, they just farm! ...
I actually live a couple miles from a commuter city to Silicon Valley. I have three options - Verizon mobile, LOS wireless (which is what I have, and it's expensive - $160/mo for 1.5mbps down/384k up), or Satellite. I'm also technically within the required distance for 1.5mbps DSL, but there's a load coil on the line somewhere. I live in a semi-rural community with many $1m+ homes. The ironic part is that it took a local DSL company to tell me this; Verizon, of course, couldn't say why they couldn't give me DSL. Maybe this whole monopoly thing isn't a good idea...
Not ... exactly. They renamed the "old" A123 to B456... the "old" one meaning the small group that is left to dismantle the company, I guess, basically. The "new" A123 (the part that actually transferred) is still A123. To avoid having two A123s, they renamed one of them.
I am rubber, you are glue.
No... maybe this one - "Uncle!"
But aren't K-12 and High Schools totally publicly funded? And look how good they are/how inexpensive/how inefficient/how balanced the pay-scales are. (sarcasm)
What's strange is that ... I went to one of those private, church/religious schools. Tuition was expensive, but not THAT expensive... and the profs? They make way less than my public junior college economics professor. And they almost all had Ph.D.'s in their field. In fact, every one of my music profs had Ph.D.'s in music, whether it was choral conducting, music education, theory and composition, music history, piano pedagogy, piano performance, etc.
Yet they worked for significantly less, as did the administrators... and there weren't even that many administrators.
Sounds like Linux would be perfect for you ;)
I tried it, too, and it seems pretty decent. Simple, easy to use, nice widget that expands easily, ties to Google Drive for easy access elsewhere. :)
WTF do people learn in school today?
That they are special and should get what they deserve regardless of how hard they work? ;)
Of course, iOS is also on completely different devices than every version of OS X combined. :)
Well, that's true. I assume he is a native English speaker, and I'm American, and Slashdot is American, so it was the first guess. But I could substitute "Americans" with "native English speakers" ... :)
Please ignore those Americans who forget there are other languages spoken in the world and that, typically, those other-language speakers actually know English quite well...
(I am on a teleconference right now with some French Canadians and Danes... all speaking English...)
- A non-offended American. :P :)